United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract ______
Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p.
This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS.
Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics
The Authors ______David N. Cole is Research Biologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, in Missoula, MT. He completed a B.A. degree in geography from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972 and a Ph.D. degree in geography from the University of Oregon in 1977.
Vita Wright is Research Application Program Leader with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, in Missoula, MT. She completed a B.S. degree in wildlife biology from the University of Montana, Missoula, in 1992 and an M.S. degree in organismal biology and ecology from the University of Montana in 1996.
Acknowledgments ______Keith Vanderwielen conducted most of the telephone interviews, reviewed many of the publications and designed and compiled most of the database. Nicole Miller also conducted interviews and reviewed publications. Dave Spildie assisted in the creation of the maps. We appreciate their work. We also appreciate the assistance of all those wilderness managers who provided us with information. Contents______Page Introduction ...... 1 Methods ...... 2
Baseline Recreation Data for the National Wilderness Preservation System ...... 3 Wilderness Campsite Data ...... 3 Wilderness Trail Data ...... 6
Wilderness Visitor Characteristics Data ...... 8 Wildernesses with the Most Complete Data ...... 10 Conclusions...... 13
References ...... 13 Appendix A: Baseline data available (campsite impact, trail impact, and visitor impact) ...... 14
Appendix B. Campsite impact data available ...... 25 Appendix C: Trail impact data available ...... 33 Appendix D: Visitor impact data available ...... 35
Appendix E: References for published campsite, trail, and visitor studies ...... 44
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and number.
Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1396 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm Mailing Address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526
Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
David N. Cole Vita Wright
Introduction ______the status of baseline recreation monitoring data for all wildernesses in the NWPS at the end of the twen- The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National tieth century. It documents the proportion of the Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) “to secure NWPS that has baseline data on recreation visitors for the American people of present and future genera- and impacts, which wildernesses have this data, and tions the benefits of an enduring resource of wilder- where they are located. It identifies the types of data ness.” The Act states that wilderness areas shall be that have been collected, the types of sampling designs administered “for the use and enjoyment of the Ameri- that have been employed, and how and where data can people in such manner as will leave them unim- have been stored. This compilation should help re- paired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” searchers identify wildernesses where trends can be Moreover, it is the responsibility of each agency that assessed and help wilderness managers identify other administers wilderness to preserve each area’s “wil- managers who might be contacted about how to ini- derness character.” Since 1964, more than 100 pieces tiate and implement new studies. of legislation have created an NWPS of over 100 The data listed in this report (subject to inevitable million acres, in well over 600 individual wilder- but hopefully minor errors of omission) are all we will nesses, administered by the U.S. Department of the ever have to gain perspective on the condition of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish designated wilderness in the twentieth century re- and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Ser- garding recreation visitors and impacts. Because man- vice (NPS); and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s agers and the interested public, in future decades and Forest Service (FS). centuries, will want to know what these places were To provide for the use and enjoyment of these areas, like, these data will become increasingly valuable. while preserving their wilderness character, it is im- Although some of the data are published in reports or portant for management agencies to monitor wilder- have been carefully archived, most are stored on paper ness recreation visitors and the impacts they cause. files in ranger offices, where they are vulnerable to Some people state that the Wilderness Act mandates loss. We strongly encourage agency personnel to rec- that recreation impacts not be allowed to increase ognize the future value of this data and invest in following wilderness designation (Worf 2001). Ideally, archiving it in such a manner that its perpetuation is baseline conditions should be inventoried at the time ensured. These data could be the basis for valuable each area is designated as wilderness and added to the assessments of recreation and impact trends across NWPS, and then periodically monitored in the future the NWPS. to assess trends in conditions and the efficacy of This report begins with an overview of the status of existing recreation management programs. Such data recreation-related monitoring across the NWPS. will become increasingly valuable to future attempts Three types of studies are surveyed: those that provide to evaluate trends in the wilderness character of each (1) campsite impact data, (2) trail impact data, and area in the NWPS. (3) information about visitor characteristics. Most of Although baseline recreation conditions have been the report consists of appendices (A through E) that inventoried in many wildernesses, such data are lack- present all the recreation monitoring data we located ing in many others. Moreover, the distribution of that had been conducted in each wilderness prior to wildernesses with baseline recreation data is not equi- 2000. This report and the original database are avail- table across the nation or the four agencies that able on the Internet (http://leopold.wilderness.net). manage wilderness. This report is an assessment of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 1 Methods ______with refuge managers and assistant managers, and occasionally with someone with recreation or wilder- The process of compiling this information began in ness in their title. In the NPS, we spoke most fre- January 1999 with a letter and one-page question- quently with resource management specialists, but naire sent to administrators of each of the 625 wilder- sometimes with district or wilderness rangers and nesses in the NWPS. Over the next year, three addi- occasionally with a planner, science advisor, natural- tional wildernesses were designated, bringing the ist, or superintendent. total that we surveyed to 628. We sent the question- In each interview, we began by establishing whether naire to 34 BLM field offices and resource areas re- data met our criteria for inclusion. Sometimes data sponsible for administration of the 134 BLM wilder- were collected in such a nonsystematic manner that nesses. We sent the questionnaire to 360 FS ranger we decided not to include them. However, for this districts responsible for the 400 FS wildernesses, to 64 criterion we erred on the side of inclusion and simply FWS refuges responsible for the 71 FWS wildernesses, noted that the sample was an opportunistic one. There and to 44 NPS parks responsible for the 44 NPS were two other common reasons for excluding data. wildernesses. (Note that additional wildernesses have First, in many wildernesses, trails are inventoried and been designated since we completed information col- information is collected on the location of existing lection on January 1, 2000, and that these numbers improvements (for example, drainage devices or total more than 625 wildernesses due to 21 wilder- bridges) and segments that need maintenance or im- nesses that are managed by two different agencies.) provement. We only included trail studies if they had The questionnaire asked whether any recreation data on recreation impacts on trails. Relatively few baseline data had ever been collected in any of the wildernesses have such data. wildernesses managed by that office, either by the Second, many wildernesses have systematically col- management agency or by someone else (such as an lected data on amount of recreation use but have no academic institution). We described the types of data baseline data on visitor characteristics. Data on amount we were interested in: (1) campsite impact data, (2) of wilderness recreation use, prior to 1995, are com- trail impact data (described as data on trail impact— piled in Cole (1996). For purposes of this report, not a prescriptive trail log that notes trail locations however, we only included wilderness visitor studies if that need work), and (3) wilderness visitor data (de- they had data on more than amount of use. Our scribed as information about the visitors and their criteria for campsite data were less stringent than for trips—not data on amount of use). If respondents trail and visitor data. We included wilderness camp- stated that no data of any of the three types had ever site studies even if the only data collected were camp- been collected, we accepted that response. From the site locations. Virtually all wildernesses had maps of BLM we received nine “no data” responses. We re- the locations of the trails in their official trail system. ceived 29 “no data” responses from the FS, 40 from the In addition to interviewing agency managers, we FWS, and seven from the NPS. However, a substantial searched for data that had been published in such number of people did not respond to our questionnaire. outlets as journals, proceedings, theses, and reports. Moreover, after interviewing many of those who re- For this purpose, we conducted extensive literature sponded that they had data, we concluded that their searches. Many publications were located by examin- data did not meet our criteria for inclusion. ing the literature cited in other papers and reports. We We conducted phone interviews with all the admin- also had access to the library of the Aldo Leopold istrators who either responded that they had data or Wilderness Research Institute, including the personal who did not respond to our questionnaire. Between collections of early wilderness scientists Bob Lucas March 1999 and January 2000, we conducted 15 inter- and George Stankey. Ultimately, we located over 300 views with the BLM, 331 with the FS, 22 with the publications that contained baseline data about wil- FWS, and 37 with the NPS. Ultimately, we conducted derness campsite impacts, wilderness trail impacts, or phone interviews with managers of every wilderness wilderness visitors. We undoubtedly missed a few in the NWPS, except those who indicated on the relevant publications but believe we have captured questionnaire that they had no data. In all cases we almost all of the relevant studies published by 2000. asked to speak with the person most familiar with When there were multiple publications from the same wilderness management. In the BLM, we spoke with study, we included more than one publication if they recreation and wilderness planners, as well as with were substantially different. In the tables that follow, State office wilderness coordinators. In the FS, we if there are multiple publications from the same study, spoke most frequently with district recreation and they are treated as if there were multiple studies. wilderness managers, but also with planners, forest- Consequently, the number of studies is inflated some- ers, resource officers, trail personnel, district rangers, what. Readers specifically interested in the Boundary and occasionally forest staff. In the FWS, we spoke Waters Canoe Area Wilderness should consult the
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 bibliography of research compiled by Lime and others Campsite data were the most frequently collected (1990). Although we use the term “monitoring data” type of baseline recreation data. Based on our criteria, throughout this report, much of this data has been about one-half of the wildernesses in the NWPS (51 collected in research projects. percent) had baseline campsite data (table 1). About For each type of baseline data, we collected informa- one-quarter of wildernesses (24 percent) had visitor tion about when the studies were conducted, how the data, and only 9 percent had trail condition data. data are stored, and where they are stored. We asked Forest Service and National Park Service wilder- questions about the survey sample. Sometimes data nesses were much more likely than Bureau of Land were collected across the entire wilderness. In other Management or Fish and Wildlife Service wilder- cases, data were only applicable to a portion of the nesses to have each of these three types of data. Forest wilderness or to a specific situation (such as visitors to Service wildernesses were more likely than National heavily used trailheads or campsites that are highly Park Service wildernesses to have campsite data, impacted). We also asked questions about the type of while National Park Service wildernesses were more data that were collected (for example, photopoints, likely to have visitor and trail condition data. Wilder- condition classes, or detailed measures). This de- nesses in the Rocky Mountain States were most likely tailed information should be helpful both to character- to have each of these types of data (table 2). Wilder- ize the types of studies that have been conducted nesses in the southwest were least likely to have across the NWPS and to provide the specifics of a campsite data. Wildernesses in the Southwest, Pacific particular study in a wilderness of interest. States and Alaska were least likely to have visitor data, while wildernesses in the Central and Northeast Baseline Recreation Data for the States and Hawaii were least likely to have trail data. National Wilderness Preservation Wilderness Campsite Data System ______Although about one-half of the 628 wildernesses in Over one-half of the wildernesses in the NWPS (56 the NWPS in 2000 had some type of baseline data on percent) had baseline recreation data of some type campsite conditions, just over one-third (37 percent) (table 1). The agency was a much better predictor of had data for all the campsites in the wilderness (table 3). whether baseline recreation data had been collected Another 5 percent had data for a sample of campsites than region of the country. Most Forest Service (77 considered to be representative of all campsites in the percent) and National Park Service (66 percent) wil- wilderness. About 4 percent had data for all the camp- dernesses had data; few Bureau of Land Management sites in a portion of the wilderness, while another 5 (17 percent) and Fish and Wildlife Service (10 percent) percent had data for a sample that was representative wildernesses had data. The Southwest (Arizona, of a specific type of campsite. In most cases, the specific Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) was the only region in types of campsite that were surveyed were heavily which a majority of wildernesses had no data (table 2). used campsites. Campsites in riparian areas, along The region with the largest proportion of wildernesses trails, and in lake basins were also subjects of focused with data was the Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Idaho, efforts in some wildernesses, as were designated camp- Montana, and Wyoming). sites, outfitter sites, and illegal sites. Research studies
Table 1—Number (percent) of wildernesses with any baseline recreation data, campsite data, trail data, or visitor data. Values are for each agency and for all wildernesses.
Type of data Agency Any Camp Trail Visitor Bureau of Land Management 23 (17) 21 (16) 3 (2) 8 (6) Fish and Wildlife Service 7 (10) 4 (6) 1 (1) 4 (6) Forest Service 308 (77) 291 (73) 46 (12) 122 (31) National Park Service 29 (66) 22 (50) 9 (20) 20 (45) All Wildernessesa 349 (56) 321 (51) 56 (9) 148 (24)
aBecause some wildernesses are managed by multiple agencies, the sum of the wildernesses managed by each agency exceeds the total number of wildernesses.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 3 Table 2—Number (percent) of wildernesses in each region and Statea with any baseline recreation data, campsite data, trail data, or visitor data.
Type of data Regon/State Any Camp Trail Visitor Alaska 26 (54) 23 (48) 4 (8) 5 (10) Hawaii 2 (100) 1 (50) 0 (0) 2 (100) Pacific 107 (54) 101 (51) 18 (9) 35 (18) California 52 (40) 46 (35) 7 (5) 18 (14) Oregon 30 (77) 30 (77) 6 (15) 9 (23) Washington 26 (87) 26 (87) 5 (17) 9 (30) Rocky Mountain 61 (82) 59 (80) 11 (15) 32 (43) Colorado 34 (89) 34 (89) 3 (8) 15 (39) Idaho 6 (100) 6 (100) 1 (17) 4 (67) Montana 11 (73) 11 (73) 3 (20) 9 (60) Wyoming 12 (80) 11 (73) 5 (33) 5 (33) Southwest 59 (41) 54 (38) 8 (6) 20 (14) Arizona 28 (31) 28 (31) 2 (2) 8 (9) Nevada 7 (47) 7 (47) 0 (0) 0 (0) New Mexico 12 (52) 10 (43) 4 (17) 3 (13) Utah 13 (81) 10 (63) 2 (13) 10 (63) Central 39 (55) 34 (48) 4 (6) 27 (38) Arkansas 7 (58) 7 (58) 0 (0) 2 (17) Illinois 5 (63) 1 (13) 0 (0) 5 (63) Indiana 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) Louisiana 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Michigan 9 (64) 9 (64) 0 (0) 2 (14) Minnesota 1 (33) 1 (33) 0 (0) 1 (33) Missouri 7 (88) 7 (88) 0 (0) 7 (88) Nebraska 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (50) NorthDakota 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oklahoma 2 (67) 2 (67) 1 (33) 1 (33) SouthDakota 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) Texas 2 (33) 1 (17) 1 (17) 2 (33) Wisconsin 5 (83) 5 (83) 0 (0) 4 (67) Northeast 14 (54) 12 (46) 2 (8) 9 (35) Maine 1 (33) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (33) Massachusetts 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) New Hampshire 3 (75) 2 (50) 0 (0) 3 (75) New Jersey 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) New York 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Ohio 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Vermont 4 (67) 4 (67) 0 (0) 1 (17) West Virginia 4 (67) 4 (67) 2 (33) 3 (50) Southeast 41 (51) 37 (46) 9 (11) 19 (23) Alabama 2 (67) 2 (67) 0 (0) 2 (67) Florida 2 (12) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (12) Georgia 11 (79) 9 (64) 3 (21) 6 (43) Kentucky 1 (50) 1 (50) 1 (50) 0 (0) Mississippi 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) North Carolina 6 (50) 6 (50) 1 (8) 4 (33) South Carolina 1 (14) 1 (7) 0 (0) 1 (7) Tennessee 10 (91) 10 (91) 1 (9) 3 (27) Virginia 14 (78) 14 (78) 4 (22) 6 (33)
aBecause some wildernesses are in multiple States, the sum of the wildernesses in each State exceeds the number of wildernesses in each region.
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Table 3—Number of wildernesses (percent of 628 wildernesses) with baseline campsite data of various types.
Sample type All campsites in the entire wilderness 234 (37) All campsites in a portion of but not the entire wilderness 22 (4) Only a sample of sites representative of the entire wilderness 32 (5) Only a sample of a particular type of campsite 29 (5) Only an opportunistic sample of campsites 9 (1) Data characteristics Detailed measures 116 (18) Categorical ratings or quick measures but not detailed measures 150 (24) Condition class ratings but no individual impact parameters 12 (2) Photopoints but no quantitative data 12 (2) Only locations of campsites 31 (5) Data entered into a geographic information system 69 (11)
often stratify campsites according to amount of use or Shenandoah Wilderness (Leung and Marion 1999a). vegetation type. Finally, another nine wildernesses Finally, 116 wildernesses had detailed measures of (1.5 percent) only had data for an opportunistic sample multiple impact parameters, the most precise and of sites. expensive data. A wide variety of campsite monitoring techniques is In most cases, monitoring data were stored in paper available (Cole 1989). The easiest technique is simply format. Campsite condition data had been entered to map the location of sites. In 31 of the wildernesses into a computer in only about 20 percent of these with campsite data, location was the only information wildernesses. In many of the wildernesses where data collected (table 3). Another 12 wildernesses also had had been entered into a computer (69 wildernesses), established photopoints at campsites. In 12 wilder- campsite condition data was stored in a geographic nesses, condition class ratings had been assigned to information system. campsites, most frequently using the Frissell system In a number of wildernesses, campsite condition (Frissell 1978), but no site measurements had been data had been collected in more than one study. Table 4 taken. In 150 wildernesses, multiple impact param- describes the relative frequency of sample types and eters had been evaluated, but evaluations consisted of data characteristics for the 591 campsite studies that either categorical ratings or quick measures. The most had been conducted in wilderness. Studies of all the common approaches included those applied by Cole in campsites in the entire wilderness were most common. the Bob Marshall Wilderness (Cole 1983) and by Studies that utilize samples, either of all campsites or Marion and his students in such places as the a particular type of campsite, were also common.
Table 4—Number (percent) of 591 wilderness campsite studies of various types.
Sample type All campsites in the entire wilderness 324 (55) All campsites in a portion of the wilderness 64 (11) Sample of sites representative of the entire wilderness 91 (15) Sample of a particular type of campsite 86 (15) Opportunistic sample of campsites 26 (4) Data characteristics Detailed measures 183 (31) Categorical ratings or quick measures 467 (79) Condition class ratings 249 (42) Photopoints 209 (35)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 5 Many studies utilized several different classes of data monitor the location of places that required some sort (for example, combining condition class ratings with of “improvement” (such as a water bar or bridge). either detailed measures or quick measures). The However, only about 9 percent of wildernesses had most common data class, collected in 79 percent of baseline assessments of the condition of the trail studies, was categorical ratings or quick measures of system (such as condition class or measures of trail multiple impact parameters. In this approach, infor- depth and erosion). Twenty-six wildernesses (4 per- mation is collected for many individual impact param- cent) had baseline data for all official trails in the eters (for example, tree damage, campsite area, and entire wilderness, and another eight wildernesses (1.3 vegetation loss), but this information is less precise percent) had data for a sample representative of all than if it were collected using detailed measures. official trails (table 5). Five wildernesses (0.9 percent) Condition class ratings or photopoints were used in 42 had data for a portion of the wilderness, and 14 percent and 35 percent of studies, respectively. De- wildernesses (2.2 percent) had data for a sample of a tailed measures of campsite impact were taken in 31 particular type of trail. Problematic trail segments percent of the studies. and social trails were the most common particular The earliest campsite data were collected in the types of trail that were studied. Sometimes a specific early 1960s on samples of campsites in the Mt. Rainier trail (Appalachian Trail, Continental Divide Trail) or and Glacier Peak Wildernesses (Thornburgh 1962) fragile vegetation type was the subject of the study. and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (Frissell 1963). Finally, four other wildernesses had only an opportu- The first surveys of campsites across entire wilder- nistic sample of trails. Seventeen wildernesses (2.7 nesses were conducted in the early 1970s in the percent) had data for social trails that develop infor- Yosemite and Olympic Wildernesses. In 44 wilder- mally as a result of user traffic. nesses (7 percent of the NWPS), some baseline camp- Trail condition data can be collected using either a site data had been collected prior to 1980 (fig. 1). By census or sampling-based approach (Leung and Marion 1990, baseline campsite data had been collected in 136 2000). In 21 wildernesses, data were collected continu- wildernesses (21 percent of the NWPS). This increased ously along the entire trail system (table 5). In 15 to 321 wildernesses (50 percent of the NWPS) by 2000. wildernesses, data were collected continuously along sample trail segments. In 24 wildernesses, informa- Wilderness Trail Data tion was collected at sample points located at specific intervals along the trail. Each of these approaches can Most wildernesses had data on the extent of their provide valid data, although there are differences in official trail system, and many managers periodically precision and in the types of information that can be
Figure 1—Earliest data for wildernesses with campsite data.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Table 5—Number of wildernesses (percent of 628 wildernesses) with baseline trail data of various types.
Sample type All official trails in the entire wilderness 26 (4) All official trails in a portion but not the entire wilderness 5 (1) Only a sample of trails representative of all trails 8 (1) Only a sample of a particular type of trail 14 (2) Only an opportunistic sample of trails 4 (1) Data collected on social (user-built) trails 17 (3) Sample technique Continuous measures along the entire trail 21 (3) Continuous measures along sample trail segments 15 (2) Measures at sample points along the trail 24 (4) Data characteristics Data on impact severity 24 (4) Data on spatial extent of impact 22 (4) Condition class ratings but not any measures 15 (2) Photopoints but no quantitative data 14 (2) Data entered into geographic information system 9 (1)
collected (Leung and Marion 1999b). In three wilder- with muddiness problems) had been taken. Measures nesses, both census and sampling-based methods were of the severity of impact (for example, trail depth) had used. been taken in 24 wildernesses. In 14 of the wildernesses with trail information, As was the case with campsite data, trail data were photopoints were all that was available (table 5). In most commonly stored in paper format. About one-third another 15 wildernesses, condition class ratings were of wildernesses with trail data had their data entered assigned to trails, but no measures were taken. In the into a computer. For nine wildernesses, data were remaining wildernesses with trail data, measures of stored in a geographic information system. trail condition were taken. In 22 wildernesses, mea- Table 6 describes the relative frequency of sam- sures of the spatial extent of impact (for example, the pling approaches and data characteristics for the 70 number of occurrences of erosion or the length of trail trail studies that had been conducted in wilderness.
Table 6—Number (percent) of 70 wilderness trail studies of various types.
Sample type All official trails in the entire wilderness 27 (39) All official trails in a portion of the wilderness 7 (7) Sample of trails representative of all trails 11 (16) Sample of a particular type of trail 21 (30) Opportunistic sample of trails 6 (9) Social (user-built) trails 20 (29) Sample technique Continuous measures along the entire trail 22 (31) Continuous measures along sample trail segments 15 (21) Measures at sample points along the trail 30 (43) Data characteristics Impact severity 33 (47) Spatial extent of impact 22 (31) Condition class ratings 21 (30) Photopoints 26 (37)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 7 Studies of all the trails in the entire wilderness were Wilderness Visitor Characteristics Data most common. Studies that utilize samples of a par- ticular type of trail were also common. The distribu- Although about one-quarter of the 628 wildernesses tion of studies across sampling types was rather in the NWPS in 2000 had some type of baseline data on equitable. Studies based on sample points were some- characteristics of their visitors, only 17 percent (107 what more common than studies that used either of wildernesses) had data representative of the entire the census-based approaches. Measures of impact wilderness (table 7). Another 3 percent had data for all severity and spatial extent, condition class ratings, the visitors in a portion of the wilderness. Finally, and photopoints were all commonly collected classes another 4 percent had data that was collected in an of data. Many studies collected several of these classes opportunistic manner. In most of the wildernesses of data (for example, combining condition class rat- with baseline visitor data, only main-season visitors ings with either measures of impact severity and/or were included in studies. Information on off-season spatial extent). Seventeen studies combined mea- visitors was available for 47 wildernesses. In most sures of severity with measures of spatial extent. visitor studies, all of the common modes of travel that Condition class ratings were combined with mea- occur in that wilderness were included. Hikers, visi- sures of spatial extent in five studies and with mea- tors traveling with packstock, and water-based users sures of impact severity in one study. were included in studies conducted in 135, 95, and 14 The earliest reported data on trail condition were wildernesses, respectively. Occasionally visitor stud- photopoints taken in the 1960s on problem trail seg- ies focused on either day visitors or, more commonly, ments in the North Absaroka and Washakie Wilder- overnight visitors. Consequently, overnight users were nesses. The earliest measures of trail condition were included in studies in 130 wildernesses, while day collected in the early 1970s on selected trail segments visitors were included in studies in 125 wildernesses. in the Lee Metcalf (Dale 1973) and Selway-Bitterroot Many of these visitor studies had been conducted by (Helgath 1974)Wildernesses. The first survey of academic institutions rather than management agen- trails across an entire wilderness was also conducted cies. Results of such studies were often carefully ana- in the early 1970s in the Yosemite Wilderness. In 11 lyzed and reported. Written reports were available for wildernesses (1.8 percent of the NWPS), some baseline 373 (93 percent) of visitor studies. However, the origi- trail data had been collected prior to 1980 (fig. 2). By nal data were often not carefully archived. With only 1990, baseline trail data had been collected in 23 a few exceptions, the data from these studies had not wildernesses (3.7 percent of the NWPS). This in- been stored in electronic format, with copies located creased to 56 wildernesses (9 percent of the NWPS) by with the management agency. 2000.
Figure 2—Earliest data for wildernesses with trail condition data.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Table 7—Number of wildernesses (percent of 628 wildernesses) with baseline visitor characteristic data of various types.
Sample type Visitors to the entire wilderness 107 (17) Visitors to a portion but not the entire wilderness 18 (3) Only an opportunistic sample of visitors 23 (4) Data characteristics Main-season visitors included 139 (22) Off-season visitors included 47 (7) Hikers included 135 (21) Stock users included 95 (15) Water-based users included 14 (2) Overnight visitors included 130 (21)
Visitors had been studied multiple times in a num- there is little insight into differences between these ber of different wildernesses. Consequently, there two visitor groups. Stock users and water-based users were more than twice as many visitor studies (397 were included in 195 studies (49 percent) and 52 studies) as there were wildernesses with data on studies (13 percent), respectively, but the characteris- visitor characteristics. Visitors to the Boundary Wa- tics of visitors using different travel modes were pre- ters Canoe Area Wilderness had been the focus of at sented separately in only 50 studies (13 percent). Day least 20 different studies. Table 8 describes the rela- visitors were included in 285 studies (72 percent), but tive frequency of sampling approaches and data char- they were differentiated from overnight visitors in acteristics for the 397 visitor studies that had been only 49 studies (12 percent). conducted in wilderness. Studies that aim to represent The earliest data on wilderness visitors were col- visitors to the entire wilderness were more common lected in the late 1950s in the Boundary Waters Canoe than studies that focus on a portion of the wilderness. Area Wilderness (Taves and others 1960). In 1960, Main-season visitors, hikers, and overnight visitors data were collected in the Bob Marshall, John Muir, were almost always included in studies. Off-season and Gila Wildernesses (Wildland Research Center visitors were included in 62 studies (16 percent), but 1962). In 42 wildernesses (7 percent of the NWPS), data were presented separately for main- and off- some baseline data on wilderness visitors had been season visitors in only seven studies (2 percent). Thus, collected prior to 1980 (fig. 3). By 1990, baseline
Table 8—Number (percent) of 397 wilderness visitor studies of various types.
Sample type Visitors to the entire wilderness 239 (60) Visitors to a portion of the wilderness 106 (27) Opportunistic sample of visitors 50 (13) Data characteristics Main-season visitors included 377 (95) Off-season visitors included 62 (16) Main- and off-season visitors compared 7 (2) Hikers included 344 (87) Stock users included 195 (49) Water-based users included 52 (13) Different travel modes compared 50 (13) Day visitors included 285 (72) Overnight visitors included 365 (92) Lengths of stay compared 49 (12)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 9 Figure 3—Earliest data for wildernesses with visitor data.
visitor data had been collected in 59 wildernesses (10 impact severity). Using these criteria, 16 wildernesses percent of the NWPS). This increased to 148 wilder- (2.5 percent) had relatively complete, informative nesses (24 percent of the NWPS) by 2000. baseline data for trail conditions. For large portions of the country, no wildernesses had complete data on Wildernesses with the Most Complete trail impacts (fig. 4c). Data The criteria we selected for visitor characteristics data were that the sample obtained was representa- For each of the three types of baseline recreation tive of visitors to the entire wilderness and that gen- data, we developed criteria for what we considered to eral questions about the visitor population were asked. be relatively complete and informative data. For camp- Some studies had only a unique focus (for example, site data, the criteria were that all campsites in the visitor response to fire) and contained no general entire wilderness were surveyed and that the data information on visitor characteristics. Such studies collected included some sort of quantification (condi- were not counted. Using these criteria, 95 wilder- tion class ratings, categorical ratings or measures). nesses (15 percent) had relatively complete, informa- Using these criteria, 211 wildernesses (34 percent) tive baseline data for wilderness visitor characteris- had relatively complete, informative baseline data for tics. Wildernesses with complete visitor data were campsite conditions. Wildernesses with complete camp- well distributed throughout the country (fig. 4d). As site data were well distributed throughout the country was the case with campsite data, wildernesses in (fig. 4b). They were most underrepresented in desert desert and coastal environments had been less fre- and coastal environments. Lack of data for wilder- quently studied. nesses in these environments might be partially ex- Only five wildernesses met the criteria for all three plained by the low levels of recreation use in wilder- types of data. Four of these were small Forest Service nesses in these environments. Wildernesses in the Wildernesses: Black Elk (South Dakota), Linville Gorge central and northeastern portions of the country also (North Carolina), Lewis Fork (Virginia), and Little were less likely to have complete campsite data. Wilson Creek (Virginia). The fifth wilderness was the The criteria we selected for trail data were that all much larger Yosemite Wilderness (California), which is official trails in the wilderness be surveyed and that managed by the National Park Service. Another 72 data collected included some sort of quantification wildernesses (11 percent of the NWPS) met these crite- (condition class ratings or measures of spatial extent or ria for two of the data types. Eight of these wildernesses
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Figure 4a—Extent of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Figure 4b—Location of wildernesses with “good” baseline data on campsite conditions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 11 Figure 4c—Location of wildernesses with “good” baseline data on trail conditions.
Figure 4d—Location of wildernesses with “good” baseline data on their visitors.
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 are managed by the National Park Service and one is Cole, David N. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. Res. Pap. INT-RP-488. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of managed by the Bureau of Land Management; the Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 other 63 are Forest Service wildernesses. p. Dale, Donn R. 1973. Effects of trail-use under forests in the Madison Range, Montana. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 96 p. Conclusions______Thesis. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr. 1963. Recreational use of campsites in the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. St. Paul, MN: University of Clearly progress has been made in collecting baseline Minnesota. 66 p. Thesis. information regarding recreational visitors and their Frissell, Sidney S. 1978. Judging impacts on wilderness campsites. impacts on units of the NWPS. Progress in document- Journal of Forestry. 76: 481–483. Helgath, Sheila F. 1974. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness trail deterio- ing the nature and extent of campsite impacts has ration study. Pullman: Washington State University. 103 p. been substantial, particularly in the last decade. In- Thesis. formation on wilderness visitors continues to slowly Leung, Yu-Fai.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1999a. Characterizing backcountry camping impacts in Great Smoky Mountains Na- accrue, while information on trail conditions remains tional Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Management. 57: sparse. However, almost one-half of the wildernesses 193–203. in the NWPS had no baseline data of any type regard- Leung, Yu-Fai; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1999b. The influence of sampling interval on the accuracy of trail impact assessment. Landscape ing recreational visitors and their impacts. Few wil- and Urban Planning. 43: 167–179. dernesses managed by the BLM and FWS had such Leung, Yu-Fai; Marion, Jeffrey L. 2000 Recreation impact and data. The paucity of baseline recreation data indicates management in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, the high value that should be attached to whatever Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change confer- baseline data exist. These data represent all the infor- ence. Vol. 5. Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management; mation we will ever have regarding recreational con- 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun- ditions in the NWPS in the twentieth century. Every tain Research Station: 23–48. effort should be made to ensure that these data (and Lime, David W.; Fox, Karen M.; Jeong, Gang Hoan; Lewis, Michael whatever documentation is necessary to facilitate their S. 1990. Wildland recreation research in the western Lake Supe- rior basin: an annotated bibliography. 1990. Misc. Pub. 66-1990. replication and interpretation) are archived in such a St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural Ex- manner that they will be preserved in perpetuity. periment Station. 62 p. Finally, we hope that this report will (1) help manag- Taves, Marvin; Hathaway, William; Bultena, Gordon. 1960. Canoe country vacationers. Misc. Rep. 39. St. Paul: University of Minne- ers of wildernesses without such data better meet sota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 28 p. their monitoring responsibilities, and (2) facilitate Thornburgh, Dale A. 1962. An ecological study of the effect of man’s future studies that seek to replicate early studies in recreational use at two subalpine sites in western Washington. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. 50 p. Thesis. order to gain insight into trends across the NWPS. Wildland Research Center, University of California. 1962. Wilder- ness and recreation—a report on resources, values and problems. Review Commission Study Report 3. Washington, DC: Outdoor References ______Recreation Resources. 352 p. Worf, Bill. 2001. The new Forest Service wilderness recreation Cole, David N. 1983. Monitoring the condition of wilderness camp- strategy spells doom for the National Wilderness Preservation sites. Res. Pap. INT-302. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricul- System. International Journal of Wilderness. 7(1): 15–17. ture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p. Cole, David N. 1989. Wilderness campsite monitoring methods: a sourcebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-259. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 57 p.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 13 Appendix A: Types of baseline data (campsite impact, trail impact, or visitor characteristics) available for each wilderness in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Absaroka-Beartooth FS MT/WY Y N N Agassiz FWS MN N N N Agua Tibia FS CA N N N Aldo Leopold FS NM Y N N Aleutian Islands FWS AK N N N Alexander Springs FS FL N N N Allegheny Islands FS PA Y N N Alpine Lakes FS WA Y Y Y Alta Toquima FS NV Y N N Anaconda Pintler FS MT Y N Y Andreafsky FWS AK N N N Ansel Adams FS CA Y Y Y Apache Creek FS AZ Y N N Apache Kid FS NM N N N Aravaipa Canyon BLM AZ Y N Y Arc Dome FS NV Y N N Argus Range BLM CA N N N Arrastra Mountain BLM AZ N N N Ashdown Gorge FS UT Y N N Aubrey Peak BLM AZ N N N Baboquivari Peak BLM AZ N N N Badger Creek FS OR Y N N Badlands NPS SD N N N Bald Knob FS IL N N N Bald River Gorge FS TN Y N N Bandelier NPS NM Y Y N Barbours Creek FS VA Y N N Bay Creek FS IL N N Y Bear Wallow FS AZ N N N Beartown FS VA Y N N Beaver Creek FS KY N N N Beaver Dam Mountains BLM AZ/UT N N N Becharof FWS AK N N N Bell Mountain FS MO Y N Y Bering Sea FWS AK N N N Big Branch FS VT Y N N Big Frog FS GA/TN Y N Y Big Gum Swamp FS FL N N N Big Horn Mountains BLM AZ N N N Big Island Lake FS MI Y N N Big Lake FWS AR N N N Big Laurel Branch FS TN Y N N Big Maria Mountains BLM CA N N N Big Slough FS TX N N N Bigelow Cholla Garden BLM CA N N N Bighorn Mountain BLM / FS CA N N N Billies Bay FS FL N N N Birkhead Mountains FS NC N N N Bisti / De-na-zin BLM NM N N N Black Canyon FS OR N N N Black Canyon of the Gunnison NPS CO Y N N Black Creek FS MS N N N Black Elk FS SD Y Y Y Black Fork Mountain FS AR/OK Y N N Black Mountain BLM CA N N N
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Blackbeard Island FWS GA N N N Blackjack Springs FS WI Y N Y Blood Mountain FS GA Y N Y Blue Range FS NM Y Y N Bob Marshall FS MT Y N Y Bogoslof FWS AK N N N Bosque del Apache FWS NM N N N Boulder Creek FS OR Y N Y Boulder River FS WA Y N N Boundary Peak FS NV N N N Boundary Waters Canoe Area FS MN Y N Y Box-Death Hollow FS UT N Y Y Bradwell Bay FS FL N N N Brasstown FS GA Y N N Breadloaf FS VT Y N Y Breton FWS LA N N N Bridge Creek FS OR N N N Bridger FS WY Y N Y Brigantine FWS NJ N N N Bright Star BLM CA N N N Bristol Cliffs FS VT N N N Bristol Mountains BLM CA N N N Buckhorn FS WA Y N N Bucks Lake FS CA Y N N Buffalo National River NPS AR Y N Y Buffalo Peaks FS CO Y N N Bull of the Woods FS OR Y N N Burden Falls FS IL N N Y Byers Peak FS CO Y N N Cabeza Prieta FWS AZ Y Y N Cabinet Mountains FS MT Y N Y Cache La Poudre FS CO Y N N Cadiz Dunes BLM CA N N N Caney Creek FS AR Y N Y Cape Romain FWS SC N N N Capitan Mountains FS NM Y N N Caribou FS CA Y N N Caribou-Speckled Mountain FS ME N N Y Carlsbad Caverns NPS NM N N N Carrizo Gorge BLM CA N N N Carson-Iceberg FS CA Y N N Castle Crags FS CA N N Y Castle Creek FS AZ Y N N Catfish Lake South FS NC N N N Cebolla BLM NM Y N N Cedar Bench FS AZ N N N Cedar Keys FWS FL N N N Chama River Canyon FS NM N N N Chamisso FWS AK N N N Chanchelulla FS CA N N N Charles C. Deam FS IN Y Y Y Chase Lake FWS ND N N N Chassahowitzka FWS FL N N N Cheaha FS AL Y N Y Chemehuevi Mountains BLM CA N N N Chimney Peak BLM CA N N N Chiricahua FS AZ Y N N Chiricahua National Monument NPS AZ N N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 15 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor
Chuck River FS AK Y N N Chuckwalla Mountains BLM CA N N N Chumash FS CA Y N N Citico Creek FS TN N N N Clear Springs FS IL N N N Clearwater FS WA Y N Y Cleghorn Lakes BLM CA N N N Clifty FS KY Y Y N Clipper Mountain BLM CA N N N Cloud Peak FS WY Y N N Cohutta FS GA/TN Y Y Y Collegiate Peaks FS CO Y N Y Colonel Bob FS WA Y Y N Comanche Peak FS CO Y N Y Congaree Swamp National Monument NPS SC N N N Coronation Island FS AK Y N N Coso Range BLM CA N N N Cottonwood Point BLM AZ N N N Coyote Mountains BLM AZ/CA N N N Crab Orchard FWS IL N N N Cranberry FS WV Y Y Y Craters of the Moon National Monument NPS ID Y N N Cruces Basin FS NM N N N Cucamonga FS CA Y N Y Cumberland Island NPS GA N N Y Cummins Creek FS OR N N N Currant Mountain FS NV N N N Dark Canyon FS UT Y N Y Darwin Falls BLM CA N N N Dead Mountains BLM CA N N N Death Valley NPS CA/NV N N Y Delirium FS MI N N N Denali NPS AK Y Y Y Deseret Peak FS UT N N N Desolation FS CA Y N Y Devils Backbone FS MO Y N Y Diamond Peak FS OR Y N N Dick Smith FS CA Y N N Dinkey Lakes FS CA Y N N Dolly Sods FS WV Y Y Y Dome FS NM Y N N Domeland FS / BLM CA Y Y N Dos Cabezas Mountains BLM AZ N N N Drift Creek FS OR N N N Dry Creek FS AR N N N Dugger Mountain FS AL N N N Eagle Cap FS OR Y N Y Eagles Nest FS CO Y N Y Eagletail Mountains BLM AZ N N N East Cactus Plain BLM AZ N N N East Fork FS AR N N N East Humboldts FS NV Y N N El Paso Mountains BLM CA N N N Ellicott Rock FS GA/NC/SC Y N Y Emigrant FS CA Y N N Encampment River FS WY Y N N
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor
Endicott River FS AK N N N Escudilla FS AZ N N N Farallon FWS CA N N N Fire Island NPS NY N N N Fish Creek Mountains BLM CA N N N Fishhooks BLM AZ N N N Fitzpatrick FS WY Y Y Y Flat Tops FS CO Y N Y Flatside FS AR Y N N Florida Keys FWS FL N N N Forrester Island FWS AK N N N Fort Niobrara FWS NE N N Y Fossil Ridge FS CO Y N N Fossil Springs FS AZ Y N N Four Peaks FS AZ Y N N Frank Church-River of No Return FS / BLM ID Y N Y Funeral Mountains BLM CA N N N Galiuro FS AZ N N N Garcia FS CA Y N N Garden of the Gods FS IL Y N Y Gates of the Arctic NPS AK Y N N Gates of the Mountains FS MT Y N N Gearhart Mountain FS OR Y N N Gee Creek FS TN Y N N George D. Aiken FS VT N N N Gibraltar Mountain BLM AZ N N N Gila FS NM Y Y Y Glacier Bay NPS AK N N Y Glacier Peak FS WA Y N Y Glacier View FS WA Y N N Goat Rocks FS WA Y N N Golden Trout FS CA Y Y N Golden Valley BLM CA N N N Gospel-Hump FS ID Y N N Grand Wash Cliffs BLM AZ N N N Granite Chief FS CA Y N N Granite Mountain FS AZ Y N Y Grant Range FS NV N N N Grass Valley BLM CA N N N Grassy Knob FS OR N N N Great Bear FS MT Y N Y Great Gulf FS NH Y N Y Great Sand Dunes NPS CO Y N Y Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge FWS NJ N N N Greenhorn Mountain FS CO Y N N Gros Ventre FS WY Y Y N Guadalupe Mountains NPS TX Y Y N Gulf Islands NPS MS N N N Gunnison Gorge BLM CO N N N Haleakala NPS HI N N Y Harcuvar Mountains BLM AZ N N N Harquahala Mountains BLM AZ N N N Hassayampa River Canyon BLM AZ N N N Hauser FS CA N N N Havasu FWS AZ/CA N N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 17 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Hawaii Volcanoes NPS HI Y N Y Hazy Islands FWS AK N N N Headwaters FS WI Y N Y Hell Hole Bay FS SC N N N Hells Canyon BLM AZ N N N Hells Canyon FS / BLM ID/OR Y N Y Hellsgate FS AZ N N N Henry M. Jackson FS WA Y N Y Hercules-Glades FS MO Y N Y Hickory Creek FS PA Y N Y High Uintas FS UT Y N Y Hollow Hills BLM CA N N N Holy Cross FS CO Y N Y Hoover FS CA Y N N Horseshoe Bay FS MI N N N Hummingbird Springs BLM AZ N N N Hunter-Fryingpan FS CO Y N Y Huron Islands FWS MI N N N Hurricane Creek FS AR Y N N Huston Park FS WY Y N N Ibex BLM CA N N N Imperial Refuge FWS AZ/CA N N N Indian Heaven FS WA Y N N Indian Mounds FS TX N N N Indian Pass BLM CA N N N Indian Peaks FS / NPS CO Y Y Y Innoko FWS AK N N N Inyo Mountains BLM / FS CA N N N Irish FS MO Y N Y Ishi FS / BLM CA Y N N Island Bay FWS FL N N N Isle Royale NPS MI Y N Y Izembek FWS AK N N N J.N. “Ding” Darling FWS FL N N N Jacumba BLM CA N N N James River Face FS VA Y N N Jarbidge FS NV Y N N Jedediah Smith FS WY Y N Y Jennie Lakes FS CA N N N John Muir FS CA Y Y Y Joshua Tree NPS CA N N Y Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock FS NC / TN Y N Y Juniper Dunes BLM WA N N N Juniper Mesa FS AZ Y N N Juniper Prairie FS FL N N Y Kachina Peaks FS AZ Y N N Kaiser FS CA Y N N Kalmiopsis FS OR Y N N Kanab Creek FS / BLM AZ Y N N Karta River FS AK Y N N Katmai NPS AK N N Y Kelso Dunes BLM CA N N N Kenai FWS AK N N Y Kendrick Mountain FS AZ Y N N Kiavah FS / BLM CA Y Y N Kimberling Creek FS VA Y N N Kingston Range BLM CA N N N Kisatchie Hills FS LA N N N
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Kobuk Valley NPS AK N N N Kofa FWS AZ N N N Kootznoowoo FS AK Y N N Koyukuk FWS AK N N N Kuiu FS AK Y Y N La Garita FS CO Y N N Lacassine FWS LA N N N Lake Chelan-Sawtooth FS WA Y N N Lake Clark NPS AK Y N N Lake Woodruff FWS FL N N N Lassen Volcanic NPS CA Y N Y Latir Peak FS NM N N N Laurel Fork North FS WV N N N Laurel Fork South FS WV N N N Lava Beds NPS CA N N N Leaf FS MS N N N Leatherwood FS AR N N N Lee Metcalf FS / BLM MT Y Y Y Lewis Fork FS VA Y Y Y Linville Gorge FS NC Y Y Y Little Chuckwalla Mountains BLM CA N N N Little Dry Run FS VA Y Y Y Little Frog Mountain FS TN Y N N Little Lake Creek FS TX N N Y Little Lake George FS FL N N N Little Picacho BLM CA N N N Little Wambaw Swamp FS SC N N N Little Wilson Creek FS VA Y Y Y Lizard Head FS CO N N N Lone Peak FS UT Y N Y Lost Creek FS CO Y N N Lostwood FWS ND N N N Lusk Creek FS IL N N Y Lye Brook FS VT Y N N Machesna Mountain FS / BLM CA Y N N Mackinac FS MI Y N N Malpais Mesa BLM CA N N N Manly Peak BLM CA N N N Manzano Mountain FS NM N Y N Marble Mountain FS CA Y N N Marjory Stoneman Douglas NPS FL N N Y Mark O. Hatfield FS OR Y N N Mark Trail FS GA Y N N Maroon Bells-Snowmass FS CO Y N Y Matilija FS CA Y N N Maurille Islands FS AK Y N N Mazatzal FS AZ Y N N McCormick FS MI Y N N Mecca Hills BLM CA N N Y Medicine Lake FWS MT N N N Menagerie FS OR Y N N Mesa Verde NPS CO N N N Mesquite BLM CA N N N Michigan Islands FWS MI N N N Middle Prong FS NC Y N N Middle Santiam FS OR Y N N Mill Creek FS OR Y Y N Miller Peak FS AZ Y N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 19 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Mingo FWS MO N N N Mission Mountains FS MT Y N Y Misty Fjords National Monument FS AK Y N N Mojave NPS CA N N N Mokelumne FS CA Y N N Mollie Beattie FWS AK Y N Y Monarch FS CA Y N N Monomoy FWS MA N N N Monument Rock FS OR Y N N Moosehorn FWS ME N N N Moosehorn (Baring Unit) FWS ME N N N Mount Adams FS WA Y N N Mount Baker FS WA Y N Y Mount Baldy FS AZ Y N Y Mount Evans FS CO Y N N Mount Hood FS OR Y N N Mount Jefferson FS OR Y Y Y Mount Logan BLM AZ N N N Mount Massive FS / FWS CO Y N N Mount Naomi FS UT Y N Y Mount Nebo FS UT Y N N Mount Nutt BLM AZ N N N Mount Olympus FS UT N N Y Mount Rainier NPS WA Y Y Y Mount Skokomish FS WA Y N N Mount Sneffels FS CO Y N N Mount Thielsen FS OR Y N N Mount Timpanogos FS UT Y Y Y Mount Tipton BLM AZ N N N Mount Trumbull BLM AZ N N N Mount Washington FS OR Y N Y Mount Wilson BLM AZ N N N Mount Zirkel FS CO Y N N Mountain Lake FS VA/WV Y N N Mountain Lakes FS OR Y Y Y Mt. Charleston FS NV N N N Mt. Moriah FS / BLM NV N N N Mt. Rose FS NV Y N N Mt. Shasta FS CA Y N Y Mt. Wrightson FS AZ N N N Mud Swamp/New River FS FL N N N Muggins Mountain BLM AZ Y N N Munds Mountain FS AZ Y N Y Needle’s Eye BLM AZ N N N Neota FS CO Y N N Never Summer FS CO Y Y N New Water Mountains BLM AZ N N N Newberry Mountains BLM CA N N N Noatak NPS AK Y N N Noisy-Diobsud FS WA Y N Y Nopah Range BLM CA N N N Nordhouse Dunes FS MI Y N Y Norse Peak FS WA Y N Y North Absaroka FS WY Y Y N North Algodones Dunes BLM CA N N N North Fork FS CA N N N North Fork John Day FS OR Y N N
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor North Fork Umatilla FS OR Y N N North Maricopa Mountains BLM AZ N N N North Mesquite Mountains BLM CA N N N North Santa Teresa BLM AZ N N N Nunivak FWS AK N N N Okefenokee FWS GA N N Y Old Woman Mountains BLM CA N N N Olympic NPS WA Y Y Y Opal Creek FS OR N N N Oregon Islands FWS OR N N N Organ Pipe Cactus NPS AZ N N N Orocopia Mountains BLM CA N N N Otay Mountain BLM CA N N N Otter Creek FS WV Y N Y Owens Peak BLM CA N N N Paddy Creek FS MO Y N Y Pahrump Valley BLM CA N N N Paiute BLM AZ N N N Pajarita FS AZ N N N Palen/McCoy BLM CA N N N Palo Verde Mountains BLM CA N N N Panther Den FS IL N N Y Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs BLM AZ/UT Y N Y Pasayten FS WA Y N N Passage Key FWS FL N N N Pecos FS NM Y N Y Pelican Island FWS FL N N N Peloncillo Mountains BLM AZ N N N Pemigewasset FS NH Y N Y Peru Peak FS VT Y N N Peters Mountain FS VA Y N N Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck FS AK Y Y N Petrified National Forest NPS AZ N N N Phillip Burton NPS CA N N N Picacho Peak BLM CA N N N Pine Creek FS CA N N N Pine Mountain FS AZ N N N Pine Valley Mountain FS UT Y N Y Piney Creek FS MO Y N Y Pinnacles NPS CA N N N Piper Mountain BLM CA N N N Piute Mountains BLM CA N N N Platte River FS CO/WY Y N N Pleasant/Lemusurier/ Inian Islands FS AK N N N Pocosin FS NC N N N Pond Mountain FS TN Y N N Pond Pine FS NC N N N Popo Agie FS WY Y N Y Porcupine Lake FS WI Y N Y Poteau Mountain FS AR N N N Powderhorn BLM / FS CO Y N N Presidential Range-Dry River FS NH N N N Ptarmigan Peak FS CO Y N N Pusch Ridge FS AZ Y N N Quinn Canyon FS NV N N N Raggeds FS CO Y N Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 21 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Rainbow Lake FS WI Y N N Ramseys Draft FS VA Y N Y Rattlesnake FS MT Y Y Y Raven Cliffs FS GA Y Y N Rawah FS CO Y N Y Rawhide Mountains BLM AZ N N N Red Buttes FS CA/OR Y N Y Red Rock Lakes FWS MT N N N Red Rock-Secret Mountain FS AZ Y N Y Redfield Canyon BLM AZ N N N Resting Spring Range BLM CA N N N Rice Valley BLM CA N N N Rich Hole FS VA N N N Rich Mountain FS GA N N N Richland Creek FS AR Y N N Rincon Mountain FS AZ N N N Riverside Mountains BLM CA N N N Rock Creek FS OR N N N Rock River Canyon FS MI Y N N Rockpile Mountain FS MO Y N Y Rodman Mountains BLM CA N N N Rogue-Umpqua Divide FS OR Y N Y Rough Mountain FS VA N N N Round Island FS MI Y N N Ruby Mountains FS NV Y N N Russell Fjord FS AK Y N N Russian FS CA Y N N Sacatar Trail BLM CA N N N Saddle Mountain FS AZ N N N Saddle Peak Hills BLM CA N N N Saguaro NPS AZ Y N Y Saint Lazaria FWS AK N N N Saint Mary’s FS VA Y N Y Salmon-Huckleberry FS OR Y N N Salmo-Priest FS ID Y N N Salome FS AZ Y N N Salt Creek FWS NM N N N Salt River Canyon FS AZ Y N N Sampson Mountain FS TN Y N N San Gabriel FS CA Y N Y San Gorgonio FS / BLM CA N N Y San Jacinto FS CA Y N Y San Juan FWS WA N N N San Mateo Canyon FS CA N N Y San Pedro Parks FS NM N N N San Rafael FS CA Y N N Sandia Mountain FS NM N N Y Sandwich Range FS NH N N Y Sangre de Cristo FS CO Y Y Y Santa Lucia FS / BLM CA Y N N Santa Rosa BLM / FS CA Y N N Santa Rosa-Paradise Peak FS NV N N N Santa Teresa FS AZ N N N Sarvis Creek FS CO Y N N Savage Run FS WY N N N Sawtooth FS ID Y N Y Sawtooth Mountains BLM CA N N N Scapegoat FS MT Y N Y
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Selawik FWS AK N N N Selway-Bitterroot FS ID/MT Y Y Y Semidi FWS AK N N N Seney FWS MI N N N Sequoia-Kings Canyon NPS CA Y N Y Sespe FS CA Y N N Shawvers Run FS VA Y N N Sheep Mountain FS CA Y N Y Sheep Ridge FS NC N N N Sheephole Valley BLM CA N N N Shenandoah NPS VA Y Y Y Shining Rock FS NC Y N Y Sierra Ancha FS AZ Y N N Sierra Estrella BLM AZ N N N Signal Mountain BLM AZ N N N Silver Peak FS CA Y N N Simeonof FWS AK N N N Sipsey FS AL Y N Y Siskiyou FS CA Y N N Sky Lakes FS OR Y Y N Snow Mountain FS CA Y N N Soldier Creek FS NE N N N South Baranof FS AK Y N N South Etolin FS AK Y N N South Maricopa Mountains BLM AZ N N N South Nopah Range BLM CA N N N South Prince of Wales FS AK N N N South San Juan FS CO Y N N South Sierra FS CA Y Y N South Warner FS CA Y N N Southern Nantahala FS GA/NC Y N N St. Marks FWS FL N N N Stateline BLM CA N N N Stephen Mather NPS WA Y Y N Stepladder Mountains BLM CA N N N Stikine-LeConte FS AK Y N N Strawberry Crater FS AZ N N N Strawberry Mountain FS OR Y N N Sturgeon River Gorge FS MI Y N N Superstition FS AZ Y Y Y Surprise Canyon BLM CA N N N Swanquarter FWS NC N N N Swansea BLM AZ N N N Sycamore Canyon FS AZ Y N N Sylvania FS MI Y N N Sylvania Mountains BLM CA N N N Table Mountain FS NV Y N N Table Rock BLM OR Y Y N Table Top BLM AZ N N N Tamarac FWS MN N N N Tatoosh FS WA Y N N Tebenkof Bay FS AK Y Y N Teton FS WY Y Y Y The Brothers FS WA Y N N Theodore Roosevelt NPS ND N N N Thousand Lakes FS CA Y N N Three Arch Rocks FWS OR N N N Three Sisters FS OR Y Y Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 23 Appendix A (continued)
Wilderness Agency State Camp Trail Visitor Thunder Ridge FS VA Y N N Togiak FWS AK Y N N Tracy Arm-Fords Terror FS AK Y N N Trapper Creek FS WA Y N N Tray Mountain FS GA Y Y N Tres Alamos BLM AZ N N N Trigo Mountain BLM AZ N N N Trilobite BLM CA N N N Trinity Alps FS / BLM CA Y N N Turkey Hill FS TX N N N Turtle Mountains BLM CA N N N Tuxedni FWS AK N N N Twin Peaks FS UT N N Y UL Bend FWS MT N N N Unaka Mountain FS TN Y N N Uncompahgre FS / BLM CO Y N Y Unimak FWS AK N N N Upland Island FS TX N N Y Upper Buffalo FS AR Y N N Upper Burro Creek BLM AZ N N N Upper Kiamichi River FS OK Y Y Y Vasquez Peak FS CO N N N Ventana FS CA Y N N Wabayuma Peak BLM AZ N N N Waldo Lake FS OR Y N N Wambaw Creek FS SC N N N Wambaw Swamp FS SC N N N Warm Springs BLM AZ N N N Warren Island FS AK Y N N Washakie FS WY Y Y N Washington Islands FWS WA N N N Welcome Creek FS MT N N N Wellsville Mountain FS UT Y N N Weminuche FS CO Y N Y Wenaha-Tucannon FS OR/WA Y N N West Chichagof-Yakobi FS AK Y N N West Clear Creek FS AZ Y N N West Elk FS CO Y N Y West Malpais BLM NM Y N N West Sister Island FWS OH N N N Wet Beaver FS AZ Y N N Wheeler Peak FS NM N N N Whipple Mountains BLM CA N N N Whisker Lake FS WI Y N Y White Canyon BLM AZ N N N White Mountain FS NM Y N N Wichita Mountains FWS OK N N N Wild Rogue FS / BLM OR Y N N William O. Douglas FS WA Y N N Winegar Hole FS WY N N N Wisconsin Islands FWS WI N N N Withington FS NM N N N Wolf Island FWS GA N N N Wonder Mountain FS WA Y N N Woodchute FS AZ N N N Woolsey Peak BLM AZ N N N Wrangell-St. Elias NPS AK Y N N Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel FS / BLM CA Y N N Yosemite NPS CA Y Y Y
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix B: Earliest date, sample type, and data characteristics of baseline campsite impact data available for each wilderness with campsite data. If no citation is given, data are unpublished. Characteristics of all unpublished data for each wilderness have been combined in a single row. If the row following the wilderness name is blank, there is no unpublished data. See text for definitions of sample type and data characteristics.
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Absaroka-Beartooth 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Aldo Leopold 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y N N Allegheny Islands 1980 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Alpine Lakes 1970 Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Alta Toquima 1993 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Anaconda Pintler 1977 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ansel Adams 1981 Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Apache Creek 1998 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Aravaipa Canyon 1997 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Arc Dome 1993 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Ashdown Gorge 1997 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Badger Creek 1996 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Bald River Gorge 1987 N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Bandelier 1993 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Barbours Creek 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Beartown 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Bell Mountain 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Big Branch 1995 N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Big Frog 1995 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Big Island Lake 1997 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Big Laurel Branch 1992 N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Black Canyon of the Gunnison 1996 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Black Elk 1996 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Black Fork Mountain Unknown Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N Blackjack Springs 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Blood Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Blue Range 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N Bob Marshall 1984 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Cole and Hall (1992) 1981 N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N Weesner (1990) 1981 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Cole (1982b) 1981 N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Cole (1983a) 1982 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N Cole (1984) 1983 N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Boulder Creek 1970 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N Y Boulder River 1997 N N Y N N Y N N N N N N Boundary Waters Canoe Area 1986 N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Frissell (1963) 1962 N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N Frissell and Duncan (1965) 1962 N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y N McCool and others (1969) 1966 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Merriam and others (1973) 1968 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Merriam and Peterson (1983) 1968 N N N Y N Y N Y N N Y N Merriam and Smith (1974) 1968 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Merriam and Smith (1975) 1974 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Cole and Marion (1986) 1983 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Marion (1984) 1983 N N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Marion and Merriam (1985a,b) 1983 N N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 25 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Brasstown 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Breadloaf 1992 N N N Y N Y N N N Y N N Bridger 1989 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Dunwiddie and Heberlein (1976) 1974 N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N Buckhorn 1970 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Bucks Lake 1987 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Buffalo National River 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Buffalo Peaks 1980 Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N Bull of the Woods 1998 Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N Byers Peak 1999 N Y N N N Y Y Y N N N N Cabeza Prieta 1998 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Cabinet Mountains 1983 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Cache La Poudre 1989 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Caney Creek 1977 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N McEwen and others (1996) 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Capitan Mountains 1997 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Caribou 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Carson-Iceberg 1980 N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Castle Creek 1998 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Cebolla 1993 N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N Charles C. Deam 1996 N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Cheaha 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y N N Y N Clonts (1994) 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Chiricahua 1992 N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Chuck River 1991 Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Chumash 1999 N Y N N N Y N N N N N N Clearwater 1970 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Clifty 1980 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Cloud Peak 1986 N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Cohutta 1995 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Collegiate Peaks 1980 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Colonel Bob 1994 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Comanche Peak 1977 Y N N N Y Y N N Y N N N Overton (1991) 1986 N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Coronation Island 1989 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Cranberry 1991 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Craters of the Moon National Monument 1994 N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Cucamonga 1995 N Y N N N Y N Y Y N N N Dark Canyon 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Denali 1980 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Desolation 1993 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Devils Backbone 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Diamond Peak 1987 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N N Dick Smith 1999 N Y N N N Y N N N N N N Dinkey Lakes 1980 N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Dolly Sods 1991 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hall (1989) 1987 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Dome 1998 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Domeland 1972 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Eagle Cap Cole (1977) 1974 N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N Cole (1993) 1975 N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N Cole and Fichtler (1983) 1978 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Cole (1982a) 1979 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Cole (1986b) 1979 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Cole and Hall (1992) 1979 N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N Cole and Marion (1986) 1979 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Cole (1982c) 1980 N Y N N N Y N Y Y N N N Hall and Shelby (1994) 1993 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Cole and Spildie (2000) 1995 N N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y Eagles Nest 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N East Humboldts 1993 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Ellicott Rock 1993 N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N Emigrant 1980 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Encampment River 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N N Fitzpatrick 1987 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Flat Tops 1975 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Flatside 1990 N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N Fossil Ridge 1997 Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N Fossil Springs 1988 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Four Peaks Unknown N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Frank Church-River of No Return 1970 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Coombs (1976) 1975 N N N Y N Y Y N N Y N N Garcia 1960 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Garden of the Gods McEwen and others (1996) 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Gates of the Arctic 1996 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Gates of the Mountains 1990 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Gearhart Mountain 1990 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Gee Creek 1980 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Gila 1980 Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Glacier Peak 1970 Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Thornburgh (1962) 1961 N N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Glacier View 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Goat Rocks 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Golden Trout 1972 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Gospel-Hump 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Granite Chief 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Granite Mountain 1998 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Great Bear 1980 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Weesner (1990) 1981 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Great Gulf 1999 N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Great Sand Dunes 1995 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Greenhorn Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Gros Ventre 1989 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Guadalupe Mountains 1988 Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Hawaii Volcanoes 1999 Y N N N N Y N N N N N Y Headwaters 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Hells Canyon (ID/OR) 1993 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Henry M. Jackson 1970 Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Hercules-Glades 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N McEwen and others (1996) 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Hickory Creek 1993 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y High Uintas 1970 Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Rogers (1986) 1985 N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Holy Cross 1980 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Hoover 1981 Y N N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Hunter-Fryingpan 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 27 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Hurricane Creek 1992 N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Huston Park 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N N Indian Heaven 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Indian Peaks 1979 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Johnson (1989) 1989 N Y N N N Y N Y Y N N N Irish 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Ishi 1995 N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Isle Royale Farrell and Marion (1998) 1996 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Farrell and Marion (2000) 1996 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N James River Face 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Jarbidge 1992 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Jedediah Smith 1991 N Y N N N Y Y N N N N N John Muir 1974 Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Dykema (1971) Unknown N N N Y N Y N N N Y Y N Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 1987 N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Juniper Mesa 1998 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Kachina Peaks 1990 N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Kaiser 1980 N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Kalmiopsis 1988 Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Kanab Creek 1999 N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Karta River 1989 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Kendrick Mountain 1994 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Kiavah 1972 Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Kimberling Creek 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Kootznoowoo 1980 N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Kuiu 1990 Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y La Garita 1990 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Lake Chelan-Sawtooth 1980 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Lake Clark 1982 N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Lassen Volcanic 1980 N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Lee Metcalf 1978 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Brown and Schomaker (1974) 1972 N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Cole (1993) 1972 N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N Frissell (1973) 1972 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Lewis Fork 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Linville Gorge 1999 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Little Dry Run 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Little Frog Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Little Wilson Creek 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Lone Peak 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Lost Creek 1996 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Lye Brook 1995 N Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N Machesna Mountain 1960 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Mackinac 1999 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Marble Mountain 1980 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Mark O. Hatfield 1994 Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Mark Trail 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Maroon Bells-Snowmass 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Matilija Unknown N N N Y N Y N N N N N N
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Maurille Islands 1989 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Mazatzal 1992 N Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N N McCormick 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N Menagerie 1992 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Middle Prong 1998 N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Middle Santiam 1992 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Mill Creek 1987 N N Y N N Y N N N N N N Miller Peak 1990 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Mission Mountains Unknown N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Misty Fjords National Monument 1989 N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Mokelumne 1980 Y Y N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Mollie Beattie 1994 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Monarch 1999 N N Y N N Y N N Y N N Y Monument Rock 1995 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Mount Adams 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Mount Baker 1970 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mount Baldy Unknown N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Mount Evans 1996 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Mount Hood 1980 Y N Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N Mount Jefferson 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y Y N Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Mount Massive 1980 Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N Mount Naomi 1993 N N Y N N Y N Y N Y N N Mount Nebo 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Mount Rainier 1970 N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Thornburgh (1962) 1961 N N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Rochefort and Swinney (2000) 1988 N Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Mount Skokomish 1970 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Mount Sneffels 1985 Y Y N N N Y N Y Y N N N Mount Thielsen Unknown N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N N Mount Timpanogos 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Mount Washington 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Mount Zirkel 1980 Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Mountain Lake 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Mountain Lakes 1994 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Mt. Rose 1994 Y N N N N Y N N N N N Y Mt. Shasta 1989 N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Muggins Mountain 1992 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Munds Mountain 1988 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Neota 1993 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Never Summer 1980 Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N N N Noatak 1998 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Noisy-Diobsud 1970 Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Nordhouse Dunes 1994 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Norse Peak 1970 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y North Absaroka 1977 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N North Fork John Day 1992 Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N North Fork Umatilla 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Olympic 1988 Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N Moorhead and Schreiner (1979) 1970 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Schreiner and Moorhead (1976) 1970 Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Schreiner and Moorhead (1979) 1970 Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Simon (1978) 1973 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 29 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Otter Creek 1990 N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Paddy Creek 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs 1994 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Pasayten 1993 N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Pecos 1986 Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pemigewasset 1997 N Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y Peru Peak 1995 N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Peters Mountain 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck 1990 Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Pine Valley Mountain Unknown N N Y N N Y N N N N N N Piney Creek 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Platte River 1980 Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Pond Mountain 1992 N N N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Popo Agie 1987 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Porcupine Lake 1985 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Powderhorn 1980 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Ptarmigan Peak 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Pusch Ridge 1985 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Raggeds 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Rainbow Lake 1995 N N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Ramseys Draft Gentile and others (1990) 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Gentile and others (1992) 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Rattlesnake 1993 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Cole and Fichtler (1983) 1978 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Y N Fichtler (1980) 1978 N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Raven Cliffs 1999 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Chappell (1999) 1999 N N Y N N Y N Y N Y N N Rawah 1977 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Red Buttes 1990 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Red Rock-Secret Mountain 1988 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Richland Creek 1992 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rock River Canyon 1997 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Rockpile Mountain 1993 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Rogue-Umpqua Divide 1989 N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Round Island 1999 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Ruby Mountains 1993 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Russell Fjord Unknown N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Russian 1993 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Saguaro 1992 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Saint Mary’s Gentile and others (1990) 1990 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Gentile and others (1991) 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Gentile and others (1992) 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Salmon-Huckleberry 1994 Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Salmo-Priest 1993 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Salome 1994 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Salt River Canyon 1989 N Y N N N Y N Y Y N N N Sampson Mountain 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N San Gabriel 1995 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N San Jacinto 1991 Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N San Rafael 1960 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Sangre de Cristo 1991 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS Santa Lucia 1960 Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Santa Rosa 1991 N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N Sarvis Creek 1993 N N N Y N Y N Y Y N N N Sawtooth 1970 Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Scapegoat 1980 Y N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Selway-Bitterroot 1970 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cole (1993) 1977 N Y N N N Y Y Y N N N N Cole and Ranz (1983) 1977 N Y N N N Y N Y N Y N N Ranz (1979) 1977 N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N Spildie and others (2000) 1993 N Y N N N Y N N Y Y Y N Sequoia-Kings Canyon Parsons and Stohlgren (1987) 1976 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Stohlgren and Parsons (1992) 1977 Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N N Simon (1978) 1977 N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N Scuderi (1981) 1979 N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N Stohlgren (1982) 1980 N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Stohlgren (1986) 1980 N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Stohlgren and Parsons (1986) 1980 N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Sespe 1999 N Y N Y N Y N N N N N N Shawvers Run 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leung and Marion (2000) Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Sheep Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Shenandoah Marion and Haskell (1988) 1981 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Williams (1994) 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Williams and Marion (1995) 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Shining Rock 1998 N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Saunders (1985) 1976 N N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Saunders (1986) 1976 N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y N Roggenbuck and Berrier (1980) 1979 N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N Sierra Ancha 1994 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Silver Peak 1979 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Sipsey 1992 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Clonts (1994) 1991 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Siskiyou 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Sky Lakes 1985 Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Snow Mountain 1989 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N South Baranof 1986 N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N South Etolin 1997 Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N South San Juan 1986 Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y South Sierra Unknown Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N South Warner 1980 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Southern Nantahala 1994 Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y N N Stephen Mather 1980 N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Gettinger and others (1998) 1980 Y N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Stikine-LeConte 1999 N N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Strawberry Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Sturgeon River Gorge 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N Superstition 1994 N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Sycamore Canyon 1988 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Sylvania 1994 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N Y N Table Mountain 1993 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Table Rock 1988 Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y N Tatoosh 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 31 Appendix B (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Locations
Photopoints
Condition Class
Categorical
Quick measures
Detailed measures
GIS
Tebenkof Bay 1990 Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Teton 1978 N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N N N The Brothers 1970 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Thousand Lakes 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N Three Sisters 1980 Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y N Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Thunder Ridge 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Thunder Ridge Unknown Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Togiak 1992 N N N N Y N N N Y N N N Tracy Arm-Fords Terror 1990 Y N N N N Y Y N N Y N N Trapper Creek 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Tray Mountain 1995 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Trinity Alps 1993 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Unaka Mountain 1989 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Uncompahgre 1990 Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N Upper Buffalo 1992 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N McEwen and others (1996) 1994 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N Upper Kiamichi River 1995 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Huff (1995) 1994 N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ventana 1999 Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Waldo Lake 1997 Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N N Warren Island 1989 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Washakie 1977 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Wellsville Mountain 1993 N N Y N N Y N Y N Y N N Weminuche 1980 Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N Y Wenaha-Tucannon 1980 Y N N N N Y Y N Y N N N West Chichagof-Yakobi 1986 N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N West Clear Creek 1988 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N West Elk 1980 Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y N N West Malpais 1993 N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N Wet Beaver 1988 N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Whisker Lake 1992 Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N N White Mountain 1997 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Wild Rogue Unknown N N N Y N Y N N N N N N William O. Douglas 1990 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Wonder Mountain 1970 Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N N N Wrangell-St. Elias 1980 N Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N N Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel 1992 N N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Yosemite 1972 Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N Boyers and others (2000) 1972 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Holmes (1973) 1972 Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N Sydoriak (1986) 1983 Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N Moritsch and Muir (1993) 1990 N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Eagan and Newman (1999) 1990 N N N N Y N N N N N Y N
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix C: Earliest date, sample type, survey technique, and data characteristics of baseline trail impact data available for each wilderness with trail data. If no citation is given, data are unpublished. Characteristics of all unpublished data for each wilderness have been combined in a single row. If the row following the wilderness name is blank, there is no unpublished data. See text for definitions of sample type, survey technique, and data characteristics.
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Social trails
Continue/entire
Continue/sample
Sample points
Photopoints
Condition class
Spatial extent
Severity
GIS Alpine Lakes Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N Ansel Adams 1999 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Bandelier 1993 Y N N N N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Black Elk 1996 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N Blue Range 1995 Y N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N Box-Death Hollow Unk N N N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Cabeza Prieta 1998 N N N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Charles C. Deam 1996 N N N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Clifty 1980 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N Cohutta Unk Y N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N Colonel Bob 1994 Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N N Cranberry 1991 N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Denali 1976 N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Dolly Sods 1991 N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Hall (1989) 1987 N N Y Y N N N N Y N N N Y N Domeland 1972 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Fitzpatrick 1982 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Gila 1995 Y N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N Golden Trout 1972 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Gros Ventre 1999 N N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Guadalupe Mountains Fish & Brothers (1981) 1979 N N Y N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N Indian Peaks 1987 N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N N N John Muir 1999 N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Kiavah 1972 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Kuiu 1997 Y N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Lee Metcalf Dale (1973) 1971 N N Y N N N N N Y Y N N Y N Lewis Fork Unk Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N Linville Gorge 1999 Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N Y Little Dry Run Unk Y N N N N 0 Y N N N Y N N N Little Wilson Creek Unk Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N Manzano Mountain 1995 Y N N N N N Y N N N N N Y Y Mill Creek Unk N N N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Mount Jefferson Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N Mount Rainier 1986 N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N Rochefort & Swinney (2000) 1988 N N N Y N Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Mount Timpanogos 1993 Y N N N N Y N Y N Y N Y N N Mountain Lakes 1996 Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N Y Never Summer 1987 N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N N N North Absaroka 1964 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Olympic 1980 N N N Y N Y Y N N N N Y Y N Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck 1997 Y N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 33 Appendix C (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All/entire
All/portion
Sample/entire
Sample/portion
Opportunistic
Social trails
Continue/entire
Continue/sample
Sample points
Photopoints
Condition class
Spatial extent
Severity
GIS Rattlesnake 1996 N N Y N N N Y N N N N N Y N Raven Cliffs 1999 N N Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y N Chappell (1999) 1999 N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N Sangre de Cristo 1997 N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N Selway-Bitterroot 1980 N N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N Helgath (1974, 1975) 1972 N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Cole (1983b) 1978 N N N Y N N Y N Y N N Y Y N Cole (1991) 1978 N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Shenandoah 1999 N N Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y N Hall and Kuss (1989) 1985 N N Y N Y N N N Y N N N Y N Sky Lakes 1996 Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N South Sierra 1972 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Stephen Mather 1990 N N N Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y N Superstition 1985 N N Y N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Table Rock 1988 N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N N N Tebenkof Bay 1997 Y N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Teton 1997 N N N Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Three Sisters Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N N N Y Y N N N Y Y N N Tray Mountain 1999 N N Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y N Upper Kiamichi River Huff (1995) 1994 N Y N N N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Washakie 1964 Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N Yosemite 1972 Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Holmes (1973) 1972 N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N Sydoriak (1986) 1983 Y N N N N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Eagan and others (2000) 1990 N N N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix D: Earliest date, sample type, and data characteristics of baseline visitor data available for each wilderness with visitor data. If no citation is given, data are unpublished. Characteristics of all unpublished data for each wilderness have been combined in a single row. If the row following the wilderness name is blank, there is no unpublished data. See text for definitions of sample type and data characteristics.
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Alpine Lakes 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hendee and others (1977) 1973 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Shelby and others (1989) 1988 N Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Watson and others (1998a) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Anaconda Pintler Jubenville (1971) 1969 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Jubenville (1970) 1970 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Ansel Adams 1996 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Aravaipa Canyon Moore and others (1989) 1987 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Bay Creek 1991 Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Bell Mountain 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Big Frog Carlisle (1992) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Black Elk 1995 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Blackjack Springs 1985 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Blood Mountain 1994 N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Bob Marshall Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Merriam (1963) 1960 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Wildland Res. Center (1962) 1960 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Bradt (1965) 1964 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Merriam and Ammons (1968) 1964 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Stankey (1973) 1969 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Lucas (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lucas(1985) 1970 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Fitzhugh (1985) 1982 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Love and Watson (1992) 1989 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Boulder Creek 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Boundary Waters Canoe Area 1988 Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Bultena and Taves (1961) 1956 N N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N N Taves and others (1960) 1958 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Lucas (1962) 1960 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Lucas (1964a) 1960 Y N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Lucas (1964b) 1960 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Lucas (1970) 1960 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Wildland Res. Center (1962) 1960 N N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Watson (1995) 1964 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Cole and others (1995) 1969 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Stankey (1973) 1969 Y N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y Lime (1972) 1971 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N Peterson (1971) 1971 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Young (1978) 1977 Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Y N N Anderson (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N Anderson and Brown (1984) 1978 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N Adelman and others (1982) 1979 N N Y Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 35 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Kohls (1986) 1985 N N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y N N Frissell and Duncan (1965) Unk N N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N N Box-Death Hollow 1994 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Snyder and others (1995) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Breadloaf 1992 N N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Bridger 1995 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Stankey (1973) 1969 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Brown and Haas (1980) 1974 N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Dunwiddie & Heberlein (1976) 1974 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Heberlein & Dunwiddie (1979) 1974 N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Anderson and Manfredo (1986) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Manfredo (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Buffalo National River Ditton (1979) 1979 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Ditton and others (1981) 1979 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N Y Ditton (1981) 1980 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Burden Falls 1991 Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cabinet Mountains Lucas (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Caney Creek 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Watson and others (1992) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Williams and others (1992a,b) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Parker and Avant (1999) 1999 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Caribou-Speckled Mountain Michael and others (1994) 1993 Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Castle Crags Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Charles C. Deam Watson and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Cheaha Clonts (1994) 1991 Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Clonts and others (1998) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Clearwater 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Cohutta 1987 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Patterson and Williams (1991) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Watson and Niccolucci (1992b) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Watson and others (1992) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Young (1990) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Williams and others (1992a,b) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Shafer (1993) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Shafer and Hammitt (1995) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Tarrant and Schafer (1998) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Collegiate Peaks Unk Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Tarrant and Schafer (1998) 1994 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Cranberry 1991 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Echelberger & Moeller (1977) 1972 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Cucamonga
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Parker and Winter (1998) 1995 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Cumberland Island Schneider and Hammitt (1995) 1994 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N Littlejohn (1999) 1998 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Dark Canyon Snyder and others (1995) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Death Valley Littlejohn (1994) 1994 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Denali Bultena and others (1981a) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Bultena and others (1981b) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Womble (1981) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Womble and others (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Anderson (1981) 1980 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Ewert (1993) 1990 N Y N Y N N N N N N N Y N Y Swanson and others (2002a) 2000 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Desolation 1999 N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Stankey (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Cole and others (1995) 1972 Y N N N N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Lucas (1980) 1972 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Carpenter and Bowlus (1976) 1973 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Watson (1993) 1990 Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N Martin (2000) 1997 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Watson and others (1998c) 1997 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Devils Backbone 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Dolly Sods 1991 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Eagle Cap 1997 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Hendee and others (1968) 1965 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Watson and others (1996) 1965 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Orr (1983) 1982 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Hall and Shelby (1994) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Eagles Nest Haas (1979) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Ellicott Rock Hammitt and Rutlin (1995) 1992 Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Rutland and Hammitt (1994) 1992 Y N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Fitzpatrick Anderson and Manfredo (1986) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Manfredo (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Flat Tops Nellis (1996) 1995 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Johnson and others (1997) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Fort Niobrara Davis and Lindvall (2000) 1998 N Y N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N Frank Church-River of No Return 1996 Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Cole and McCool (1997) 1995 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Hunger (1996) 1995 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Hunger and others (1999) 1995 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Watson and others (1998b) 1995 N Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y N Y Garden of the Gods 1991 Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 37 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Gila Wildland Res. Center (1962) 1960 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Glacier Bay 1996 N N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Johnson (1978) 1978 N Y N Y N N Y N Y N N Y N Y Womble and others (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Johnson (1985) 1984 N N Y Y N Y N N Y N N Y N Y Salvi and Johnson (1985) 1984 Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Glacier Peak 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hendee and others (1968) 1965 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Butterworth (1970) 1968 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Granite Mountain 1998 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Great Bear Lucas (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lucas(1985) 1970 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Great Gulf 1999 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Hill and others (2000) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Canon and others (1979) Unk N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Great Sand Dunes 1997 N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Haleakala Anderson and others (1993) 1992 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Hawaii Volcanoes Anderson and others (1993) 1992 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Headwaters 1985 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Hells Canyon 1995 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Henry M. Jackson 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hercules-Glades 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hickory Creek 1996 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Graefe and others (2000) 1997 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y High Uintas 1995 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Stankey (1973) 1969 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Kennedy and Brown (1976) 1972 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Johnson and others (1997) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Holy Cross Unk Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Hunter-Fryingpan Unk Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Indian Peaks Unk N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y N Y Anderson (1981) 1980 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Irish 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Isle Royale Pierskalla and others (1997) 1996 Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Pierskalla and others (2000) 1997 Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Cain and Buckley (1964) Unk N N N N N N N N N N N Jedediah Smith Blahna and others (1995) 1993 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Blahna and Archibald (1997) 1997 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N John Muir 1974 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Watson and Niccolucci (1992a) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Ewert and Hood (1995) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Watson and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N N Watson and others (1994) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N N
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Wildland Res. Center (1962) 1990 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Christensen and Cole (2000) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Joshua Tree Trench and Wallace (1994) 1960 Y N N Y Y N Y N N Y N N N N Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Roggenbuck & Dawson (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Roggenbuck and others (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1982) 1978 Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck (1980) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Juniper Prairie Borrie and Roggenbuck (1998) 1978 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N Katmai Womble and others (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Womble (1981) 1994 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Kenai Vande Kamp and others (2002) 1978 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Lassen Volcanic 1999 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Lee Metcalf 1981 N N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y McCool and others (1990) 1970 N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Stankey (1980) 1989 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lucas (1980) 2001 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lewis Fork Ramthun and others (2000) 1972 N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Widner (1994) 1992 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1994) 1995 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Linville Gorge 1998 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Roggenbuck & Dawson (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Roggenbuck and others (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1982) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck (1980) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Little Dry Run Ramthun and others (2000) 1995 N Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Little Lake Creek 1997 Y N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N Y Little Wilson Creek Roggenbuck and others (1994) 1992 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Widner (1994) 1992 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Ramthun and others (2000) 1995 N Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Lone Peak Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Lusk Creek 1991 Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Marjory Stoneman Douglas Stewart (1991) 1989 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y Y N Maroon Bells-Snowmass Unk Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Allen (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y Haas and others (1982) 1980 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Mecca Hills Chavez and others (1993) 1991 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Mission Mountains Merriam and Ammons (1968) 1964 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 39 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Wright (1966) 1964 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lucas (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Flood (1999) 1998 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Flood and McAvoy (2000) 1998 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Mollie Beattie Warren (1980, 1986) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Mount Baker 1990 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Mount Baldy Hoover and others (1985) Unk N Y N Y N N Y N N N N N N Y Mount Jefferson Unk N N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Shelby and Harris (1986) 1983 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Shelby and Harris (1985) 1984 N Y N Y N N N N N N N Y N N Shelby and others (1988) 1985 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Cronn and others (1992) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Dawson and Watson (2000) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hall and Cole (2000) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Mount Naomi Brunner (1993) 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Mount Olympus Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Mount Rainier Ewert (1986) 1983 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Vande Kamp and others (1998) 1993 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Swanson and others (2002) 1995 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y VandeKamp and others (2000) 1995 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Lah (2000) 1997 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Mount Timpanogos Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Mount Washington Robertson (1986) 1984 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Cronn and others (1992) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Dawson and Watson (2000) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Mountain Lakes Wenger (1964) 1961 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Wenger and Gregersen (1964) 1961 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Burch and Wenger (1967) 1962 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Mt. Shasta Puttkammer (1994) 1993 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Munds Mountain 1995 N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Behan and others (2000) 1996 N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Noisy-Diobsud 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Nordhouse Dunes 1994 Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Norse Peak 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Okefenokee Shafer (1993) 1992 Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Y N Y Shafer and Hammitt (1995) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N N Borrie (1995) 1994 Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y N N
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Hockett and others (2002) 1999 Y N N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Olympic 1998 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Sommarstrom (1966) 1964 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Flewelling and Johnson (1982) 1980 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Boag (1985) 1983 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Otter Creek 1990 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Paddy Creek 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Panther Den 1991 Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs 1993 N N N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N Y Snyder and others (1995) 1993 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Olsen (1998, 1999) 1997 N Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N N Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Pecos Thorn (1994) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Pemigewasset 1996 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Fedler and Kuss (1986) 1984 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Pine Valley Mountain 1994 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Snyder and others (1995) 1993 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Piney Creek 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Popo Agie Anderson and Manfredo (1986) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Manfredo (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Porcupine Lake 1985 N N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Raggeds 1997 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Ramseys Draft Gentile and others (1991) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Rattlesnake Kelley (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Williams and others (1992a,b) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Rawah Badger (1975) 1974 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Bultena and others (1981) 1975 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Haas (1979) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Harris (1978) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Red Buttes 1997 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Red Rock-Secret Mountain 1995 N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Behan and others (2000) 1996 N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Rockpile Mountain 1998 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Rogue-Umpqua Divide Unk N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Saguaro 1999 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Sheehan (1989) 1989 N Y N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Saint Mary’s Gentile and others (1990) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Gentile and others (1991) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y San Gabriel Parker and Winter (1998) 1995 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y San Gorgonio Stankey (1979) 1973 Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N Ewert and Hood (1995) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 41 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Winter (1996) 1994 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Winter and others (1997) 1997 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Winter and others (1999) 1998 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y San Jacinto Stankey (1979) 1973 Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N Setran (1978) 1976 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y San Mateo Canyon Chavez (1994) 1993 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Sandia Mountain 1991 N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y Sandwich Range Berry and others (1993) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N N N Y Sangre de Cristo 1995 N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Sawtooth Boyd (1995) 1994 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Scapegoat Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Lucas (1980) 1970 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Lucas(1985) 1970 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Selway-Bitterroot 1993 N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Lucas (1980) 1971 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y McCool and Stankey (1986) 1971 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Stoner (1976) 1971 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Fazio (1979) 1976 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Hammond (1994) 1993 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N McCool and Cole (2000) 1995 N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Sequoia-Kings Canyon Cooke (1971) 1971 N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Kantola (1976) 1976 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Scuderi (1981) 1979 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Zuckert (1980) 1979 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Watson and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Sheep Mountain Parker and Winter (1998) 1995 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Shenandoah Roggenbuck (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Roggenbuck & Dawson (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Kiely-Brocato (1980) 1980 N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Wellman and others (1982) 1980 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Hockett and Hall (1999) 1997 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Hockett and Hall (2000) 1998 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Papenfuse and others (2000) 1998 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Shining Rock Cole and others (1995) 1978 Y N N N N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck (1980) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N Roggenbuck & Dawson (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Roggenbuck and Stubbs (1991) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1979) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1982) 1978 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck & Berrier (1980) 1979 N Y N Y N N Y N N Y N Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Stubbs (1991) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Appendix D (continued)
Wilderness
Earliest date
All
Portion
Opportunistic
Main season
Off season
Different seasons
Hikers
Stock users
Water users
Different travel modes
Day users
Overnight users
Different length of stay
General characteristics Stubbs & Roggenbuck (1994) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Schuster (2000) 1999 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Sipsey Clonts (1994) 1991 Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Clonts and others (1998) 1992 Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Superstition 1999 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Lewis (1971) 1970 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Schneider and others (2000) 1997 N Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N N Schneider (2000) 1998 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Teton 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Three Sisters Wenger (1964) 1961 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Wenger and Gregersen (1964) 1961 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Burch and Wenger (1967) 1962 Y N N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Hendee and others (1968) 1965 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Robertson (1981) 1980 N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Robertson (1986) 1984 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N N Christensen and Cole (2000) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Cole and others (1997) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y Cronn and others (1992) 1991 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Dawson and Watson (2000) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Hall and Cole (2000) 1991 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Twin Peaks Hoss and Brunson (2000) Unk N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Uncompahgre Johnson and others (1997) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Upland Island Unk Y N N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Watson and others (1992) 1989 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Roggenbuck and others (1993) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Williams and others (1992a,b) 1990 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Upper Kiamichi River Kuzmic (1993) 1991 Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Weminuche Haas (1979) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Johnson and others (1997) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N West Elk 1997 Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y Johnson and others (1997) 1996 N Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N N Whisker Lake 1985 N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y Yosemite Lee (1975) 1973 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Lee (1977) 1973 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Absher and Lee (1981) 1976 N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N Absher and Lee (1978) 1977 Y N N Y N N Y N N N Y Y N Y
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 43 Appendix E: References for published campsite, trail, and visitor studies.
Absher, J. 1979. A sociological approach to crowding in outdoor Borrie, William T.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1998. Describing the recreation: a study of the Yosemite National Park backcountry. wilderness experience at Juniper Prairie Wilderness using Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Dissertation. experience sampling methods. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Legg, Absher, J. D.; Lee, Robert G. 1978. Analysis of sociological carrying Michael H., eds. Wilderness & natural areas in Eastern North capacity for the Yosemite National Park backcountry: final re- America: research, management and planning. Nacogdoches, search report. Unpublished report on file at: Berkeley: University TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur Temple College of California, Berkeley, Department of Forestry and Conserva- of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies: 165–172. tion. 57 p. Boyd, Andrew W. 1995. The effectiveness of belief-based communi- Absher, James D.; Lee, Robert G. 1981. Density as an incomplete cations on low impact camping behavior in the Sawtooth Wilder- cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure Sciences. 4(3): ness. Moscow: University of Idaho. 126 p. Thesis. 231–247. Boyers, Laurel; Fincher, Mark; van Wagtendonk, Jan. 2000. Twenty- Adelman, Bonnie J; Heberlein, T. A; Bonnicksen, T. M. 1982. Social eight years of wilderness campsite monitoring in Yosemite Na- psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict be- tional Park. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, tween paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a Waters Canoe Area. Leisure Sciences. 5: 45–62. time of change conference–Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, Allen, Deborah J. 1979. Wilderness user preferences for psychologi- threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. cal outcomes and setting attributes. Fort Collins: Colorado State RMRS–P–15–VOL–5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agricul- University. 123 p. Dissertation. ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 105–109. Anderson, Dorothy H. 1980. Displacement of visitors within the Bradt, William C. 1965. A survey of the users of the Bob Marshall Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Fort Collins: Colorado Wilderness Area, Montana, in 1964. Bozeman: Montana State State University. 138 p. Dissertation. University. 132 p. Thesis. Anderson, Dorothy H.; Brown, Perry J. 1984. The displacement Brown, Perry J.; Haas, Glenn E. 1980. Wilderness recreation experi- process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research. 16: 61–73. ences: the Rawah case. Journal of Leisure Research. 12(3): 229–241. Anderson, Dorothy H.; Manfredo, Michael J. 1986. Visitor prefer- Brown, Perry J.; Schomaker, John H. 1974. Final report on criteria ences for management actions. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Pro- for potential wilderness campsites. Supplement no. 323 to 12-11- ceedings—national wilderness research conference: current re- 204-3. Logan, UT: Institute for Study of Outdoor Recreation and search; 1985 July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. Tourism. 50 p. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Brunner, Jerry. 1993. Mt. Naomi Wilderness survey. Unpublished Service, Intermountain Research Station: 314–319. report on file at: Logan, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Anderson, G., Horonjeff, R.; Menge, C.; Miller, R.; Robert, W.; Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Logan Ranger District. Rossano, C.; Sanchez, G.; Baumgartner, R.; McDonald, C. 1993. Bultena,Gordon; Albrecht, Don; Womble, Peter. 1981a. Freedom Dose-response relationships derived from data collected at Grand versus control: a study of backpackers’ preferences for wilderness Canyon, Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks. NPOA management. Leisure Sciences. 4(3): 297–310. Rep. 93–6/NPOA Rep. 290940.14. Lesington, MA: Harris Miller Bultena, Gordon; Field, Donald; Womble, Peter; Albrecht, Don. Miller & Hanson Inc. 1981b. Closing the gates: a study of backcountry use-limitation at Anderson, Marcia J. 1981. User perception of human impact in the Mount McKinley National Park. Leisure Sciences. 4(3): 249–267. backcountry: a comparative study. Laramie: University of Wyo- Bultena, Gordon L.; Taves, Marvin. 1961. Changing wilderness ming. 115 p. Thesis images and forestry policy. Journal of Forestry. 59: 167–171. Badger, Thomas J. 1975. Rawah Wilderness crowding tolerances Burch, William R., Jr.; Wenger, Wiley D., Jr. 1967. The social and some management techniques: an aspect of social carrying characteristics of participants in three styles of family camping. capacity. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. 83 p. Thesis. Res. Pap. PNW-48. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul- Behan, Jeffrey R.; Richards, Merton T.; Lee, Martha E. 2000. How ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi- do visitor density and anthropogenic change in frontcountry ment Station. 30 p. wilderness settings affect recreation benefits? In: Cole, David N.; Butterworth, Stephen Ernest. 1970. Development of model guide- McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, books for Glacier Peak Wilderness. Seattle: University of Wash- comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— ington. 70 p. Thesis. Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- Cain, S. A.; Buckley, M. A. 1964. The motivations and satisfactions ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. of visitors to Isle Royale National Park, Michigan. Report to the Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Governor’s Interdepartmental Resources Development Commit- Rocky Mountain Research Station: 63–68. tee, State of Michigan. Berry, Judith; Hals, Hansi; Schriever, James; Auchly, Bruce. 1993. Canon, Lance K.; Adler, Steven; Leonard, Raymond E. 1979. Fac- Hiker characteristics as an indicator of perceived congestion in tors affecting dispersion of backcountry campsites. Res. Note NE- the Sandwich Range Wilderness area. In: Vander Stoep, Gail A., 276. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- ed. Proceedings of the 1992 Northeastern recreation research vice, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 6 p. symposium; 1992 April 5–7; Saratoga Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Carlisle, Cynthia. 1992. Big Frog Wilderness visitor study. Clemson, Rep. NE-176. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- SC: Clemson University, Department of PRTM. 43 p. est Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 51–54. Carpenter, M. Ralph; Bowlus, Donald R. 1976. Attitudes toward Blahna, Dale J.; Archibald, Kari S. 1997. Backcountry llama pack- fishing and fisheries management of users in Desolation Wilder- ing: what do other wilderness visitors think? Yellowstone Sci- ness, California. California Fish and Game. 62 (3): 168–178. ence. 5: 9–12. Chappell, Robert L., Jr. 1999. Course assignments, spring semester Blahna, Dale J.; Smith, Kari S.; Anderson, Janet A. 1995. 1999. Unpublished paper on file at: Athens: University of Geor- Backcountry llama packing: visitor perceptions of acceptability gia, Warrnell School of Forest Resources. and conflict. Leisure Sciences. 17(3): 185–204. Chavez, Deborah J. 1994. Pilot study of changing urban wilderness Boag, Alistair James. 1985. The effect of sequencing information recreation use on the Cleveland National Forest. Unpublished during and after the planning and preparation phase of the paper on file at: Riverside, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, outdoor recreation experience on recreationists’ expectations, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. learning, and satisfaction. Seattle: University of Washington. Chavez, Deborah; Baas, John; Winter, Patricia. 1993. Mecca Hills: 238 p. Dissertation. visitor research case study. BLM/CA/ST–93–005–9560. Sacra- Borrie, William T. 1995. Measuring the multiple, deep, and unfold- mento, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land ing aspects of the wilderness experience using the Experience Management. 27 p. Sampling Method. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 263 p. Dissertation.
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Christensen, Neal A.; Cole, David N. 2000. Leave No Trace prac- Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, tices: behaviors and preferences of wilderness visitors regarding Intermountain Research Station: 144–151. use of cookstoves and camping away from lakes. In: Cole, David Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F. 1997. Limits of Acceptable N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, Change and natural resources planning: when is LAC useful, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— when is it not? In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N., comps. Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change and related planning ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. processes: progress and future directions; 1997 May 20–22; Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: U.S. Rocky Mountain Research Station: 77–85. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Clonts, Howard A. 1994. Visitor characteristics, preferences and Research Station: 69–71. wilderness conditions, Cheaha and Sipsey Wilderness Areas: Cole, David N.; Ranz, Beth. 1983. Temporary campsite closures in monitoring for limits of acceptable change. Unpublished paper on the Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Forestry. 81(11): file at: Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Alabama Agricultural 729–732. Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics and Cole, David N.; Spildie, David R. 2000. Soil amendments and Rural Sociology. 118 p. planting techniques: campsite restoration in the Eagle Cap Wil- Clonts, Howard A.; Malone, Joy W.; Acharya, Ram N. 1998. Prefer- derness, Oregon. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, ences for solitude in wild places. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Legg, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a Michael H., eds. Wilderness & natural areas in Eastern North time of change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, America: research, management, and planning. Nacogdoches, threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur Temple College RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies in Forestry: 205–210. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 199–208. Cole, David N. 1977. Man’s impact on wilderness vegetation: an Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Hall, Troy E.; Spildie, David R. example from Eagle Cap Wilderness, northeastern Oregon. Eu- 1997. High-use destinations in wilderness: social and biophysical gene: University of Oregon. 307 p. Dissertation. impacts, visitor responses, and management options. Res. Pap. Cole, David N. 1982a. Wilderness campsite impacts: effect of amount INT-RP-496. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest of use. Res. Pap. INT-284. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Service, Intermountain Research Station. 30 p. Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Cole, David N.; Watson, Alan E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1995. Experiment Station. 34 p. Trends in wilderness visitors and visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Cole, David N. 1982b. Campsite standards and monitoring in the Area, Shining Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. Res. Pap. INT- Bob Marshall Wilderness. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. RP-483. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Aldo Leopold Wilder- Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. ness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. Cooke, Douglas Bryan. 1971. The perceived environment of wilder- Cole, David N. 1982c. Controlling the spread of campsites at popular ness in Kings Canyon National Park. Cincinnati, OH: University wilderness destinations. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. of Cincinnati. 79 p. Thesis. 37(5): 291–295. Coombs, Elizabeth A.K. 1976. The impact of camping on vegetation Cole, David N. 1983a. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall in the Bighorn Crags, Idaho primitive area. Moscow: University Wilderness, Montana. Res. Pap. INT-312. Ogden, UT: U.S. De- of Idaho. 63 p. Thesis. partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest Cronn, Richard; Watson, Alan E.; Cole, David N. 1992. Three and Range Experiment Station. 18 p. Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, and Mt. Washington Wildernesses, 1991: Cole, David N. 1983b. Assessing and monitoring backcountry trail a survey of Oregon wilderness visitors. Unpublished report on file conditions. Res. Pap. INT-303. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range tain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 94 p. Experiment Station. 10 p. Dale, Donn R. 1973. Effects of trail-use under forests in the Madison Cole, David N. 1984. An inventory of campsites in the Flathead Range, Montana. Bozeman: Montana State University. 96 p. National Forest portion of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Unpub- Thesis. lished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Davis, John B.; Lindvall, Mark. 2000. Standards of quality for river Service, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, use within the Fort Niobrara Wilderness Area. In: Cole, David N.; MT. McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, Cole, David N. 1986a. Recreational impacts on backcountry camp- comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— sites in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA. Environ- Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- mental Management. 10(5): 651–659. ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Cole, David N. 1986b. Ecological changes on campsites in the Eagle Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cap Wilderness, 1979 to 1984. Res. Pap. INT–368. Ogden, UT: Rocky Mountain Research Station: 232–235. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Dawson, Chad P.; Watson, Alan E. 2000. Measures of wilderness Research Station. 15 p. trip satisfaction and user perceptions of crowding. In: Cole, David Cole, David N. 1991. Changes on trails in the Selway-Bitterroot N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, Wilderness, Montana, 1978–1989. Res. Pap. INT-450. Ogden, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- tain Research Station. 5 p. ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Cole, David N. 1993. Campsites in three Western wildernesses: Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, proliferation and changes in condition over 12 to 16 years. Res. Rocky Mountain Research Station: 93–98. Pap. INT-463. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- Ditton, Robert B. 1979. The Buffalo National River recreation est Service, Intermountain Research Station. 15 p. study: year one. Unpublished report on file at: Texas A&M Cole, David N.; Fichtler, Richard K. 1983. Campsite impact on three University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department Western wilderness areas. Environmental Management. 7(3): of Recreation and Parks, College Station, TX. 115 p. 275–288. Ditton, Robert B. 1981. The Buffalo National River recreation Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 1992. Trends in campsite condition: study: year two. Unpublished report on file at: Texas A&M Eagle Cap Wilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Grand University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department Canyon National Park. Res. Pap. INT-453. Ogden, UT: U.S. of Recreation and Parks, College Station, TX. 192 p. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Re- Ditton, Robert B.; Graefe, Alan R.; Fedler, Anthony J. 1981. Recre- search Station. 40 p. ational satisfaction at Buffalo National River: some measure- Cole, David N.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1986. Wilderness campsite ment concerns. In: Some recent research products of river recre- impacts: changes over time. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceed- ation research. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-63. St. Paul, MN: U.S. ings––national wilderness research conference: current research; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 1985 July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT–212. Experiment Station: 9–17.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 45 Dunwiddie, Peter; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1976. Crowding and camp- Flood, Joseph Patrick. 1999. The influence of site restoration pro- site selection at a high mountain lake. Unpublished report on file grams on wilderness visitor experience and visitor opinions of at: University of Wisconsin, Madison. managers. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Division of Dykema, Jean A. 1971. Ecological impact of camping upon the Recreation, Park and Leisure Studies. 59 p. Thesis. Southern Sierra Nevada. Los Angeles: University of California, Flood, Joseph P.; McAvoy, Leo H. 2000. The influence of wilderness Los Angeles. 156 p. Dissertation. restoration programs on visitor experience and visitor opinions of Eagan, Sean; Newman, Peter. 1999. Plant community re-establish- managers. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, Will- ment in former high-elevation campsites in Yosemite National iam T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time Park. In: Harmon, David, ed. On the frontiers of conservation: of change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, proceedings of the 10th conference on research and resource and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS- management in parks on public lands; Asheville, N.C. Hancock, P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest MI: The George Wright Society: 239–244 Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 193–198. Eagan, Sean; Newman, Peter; Fritzke, Susan; Johnson, Louise. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr. 1963. Recreational use of campsites in the 2000. Restoration of multiple-rut trails in the Tuolumne Mead- Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. St. Paul: University of Minne- ows of Yosemite National Park. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, sota. 66 p. Thesis. Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Frissell, Sidney S. 1973. The impact of wilderness visitors on Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 5: natural ecosystems. Unpublished report on file at: University of wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 1999 May 23– Montana, Missoula. 60 p. 27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Frissell, Sidney S., Jr.; Duncan, Donald P. 1965. Campsite prefer- Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ence and deterioration in the Quetico-Superior canoe country. Research Station: 188–192. Journal of Forestry. 63(4): 256–60. Echelberger, Herbert E.; Moeller, George H. 1977. Use and users of Gentile, Jack; Coffey, Darren; West, Eric; [and others]. 1991. As- the Cranberry backcountry in West Virginia: insights for Eastern sessment of users and user impacts in the St. Mary’s and Ramsey’s backcountry management. Res. Pap. NE-363. Upper Darby, PA: Draft Wilderness Areas: a report on research. Unpublished re- Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 8 p. port on file at: James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA. Ewert, Alan. 1986. Motivation, skills levels, and their relationship Gentile, Jack; Connel, Timothy; Elam, David. 1992. Research and in mountaineering. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceedings— activities in St. Mary’s and Ramsey’s Draft Wilderness Areas, national wilderness research conference: current research; 1985 1992: a summary report. Unpublished report on file at: James July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- Gentile, Jack; West, Eric; Coffey, Darren. 1990. Monitoring user tain Research Station: 354–361. impacts in the St. Mary’s Wilderness: a report on research. Ewert, Alan. 1993. Differences in the level of motive importance Unpublished report on file at: James Madison University, based on trip outcome, experience level, and group type. Journal Harrisonburg, VA. of Leisure Research. 25(4): 335–349. Gettinger, Dean S.; Krumpe, Edwin E.; Wright, Richard G. 1998. Ewert, Alan W.; Hood, David. 1995. Urban-proximate and urban- Recreational impacts to wilderness campsites at North Cascades distant wilderness: an exploratory comparison between two “types” National Park. Natural Resources Rep. NPS/CCSOUI/NRTR-98/ of wilderness. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 13 14. Moscow, ID: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources (2): 73–85. Division, University of Idaho Wildlife Management Institute. Farrell, Tracy A.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1998. An evaluation of 109 p. camping impacts and their management at Isle Royale National Graefe, Alan R.; Thapa, Brijesh; Confer, John J.; Absher, James D. Park. Unpublished report on file at: Houghton, MI: U.S. Depart- 2000. Relationships between trip motivations and selected vari- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, Isle Royale Na- ables among Allegheny National Forest visitors. In: Cole, David tional Park. 97 p. N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, Farrell, Tracy A.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 2000. Camping impact manage- comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— ment at Isle Royale National Park: an evaluation of visitor Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- activity containment policies from the perspective of social condi- ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. tions. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of Rocky Mountain Research Station: 107–112. change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, Haas, Glenn E. 1979. User preferences for recreation experience and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS- opportunities and physical resource attributes in three Colorado P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Wilderness Areas. Fort Collins: Colorado State University, De- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 110–114. partment of Recreation Resources. 141 p. Dissertation. Fazio, James R. 1979. Communicating with the wilderness user. Haas, Glenn E.; Arnold, J. Ross; Brown, Perry J.; Driver, B.L. 1982. Moscow: University of Idaho, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Final report of the research results for the cooperative manage- Range Sciences. Bulletin No. 28: 5–22. ment-research demonstration project focusing on the Maroon Fedler, Anthony J.; Kuss, Fred R. 1986. An examination of the Bells-Snowmass Wilderness in Colorado. Unpublished paper on effects of wilderness designation on hiker attitudes. In: Lucas, file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Robert C., comp. Proceedings—national wilderness research Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, conference: current research; 1985 July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. CO. 93 p. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Hall, Christine N. 1989. Using impact indices and baseline data to Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: assess the conditions of an Eastern wilderness: a case study of 308–313. the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Monongahela National Forest, West Fichtler, Richard K. 1980. The relationship of recreational impacts Virginia. College Park: University of Maryland. 315 p. Dissertation. on backcountry campsites to selected Montana habitat types. Hall, Christine N.; Kuss, Fred R. 1989. Vegetation alteration along Missoula: University of Montana. 109 p. Thesis. trails in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. Biological Conser- Fish, Ernest B.; Brothers, Gene L. 1981. Erosional impacts of trails vation. 48: 211–227. in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Landscape Plan- Hall, Troy; Cole, David. 2000. An expanded perspective on displace- ning. 8: 387–398. ment: a longitudinal study of visitors to two wildernesses in the Fitzhugh, Elvin D. 1985. The conflict between hikers and horse- Cascade Mountains of Oregon. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen users in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex. Missoula: Univer- F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness sity of Montana. 109 p. Thesis. science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: wilderness Flewelling, Bob; Johnson, Darryll R. 1982. Backcountry permit visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; compliance in Olympic National Park. Rep. CPSU/UW 82-5. Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. De- Seattle: University of Washington. 36 p. partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re- search Station: 113–121.
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Hall, Troy; Shelby, Bo. 1994. Eagle Cap Wilderness: recreational ence—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor use and impacts. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Unpub- management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15- lished report on file at: Eagle Cap Ranger District, Wallowa- VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Whitman National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Enterprise, OR. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 128–133. Hammitt, William E.; Rutlin, William M. 1995. Use encounter Huff, Gregory S. 1995. Assessment of recreational site impact at the standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness. Stillwater: Oklahoma State Sciences. 17(4): 245–262. University. 242 p. Thesis. Hammond, Timothy P. 1994. Factors affecting attention to and Hughes, Janet L. 1985. Winter backcountry campers in the Great retention of low-impact messages on bulletin boards. Missoula: Smoky Mountains National Park: their behavior, use patterns, University of Montana. 140 p. Thesis. and characteristics. Knoxville: University of Tennessee. Thesis. Harris, Charles C. 1978. Crowding in a wilderness setting: the Hunger, Donald H.; Christensen, Neal A.; Becker, Kurt G. 1999. influence of social interaction on users’ satisfaction. Fort Collins: Commercial and private boat use on the Salmon River in the Colorado State University. Thesis. Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, United States. Heberlein, Thomas A.; Dunwiddie, Peter. 1979. Systematic obser- International Journal of Wilderness. 5(2): 31–36. vations of use levels, campsite selection and visitor characteris- Hunger, Donald Hancock. 1996. Defining potential human experi- tics at a high mountain lake. Journal of Leisure Research. 11(4): ence indicators and standards on the Main Stem and Middle Fork 307–316. of the Salmon River in Idaho: summer, 1995. Olympia, WA: Helgath, Sheila F. 1974. Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness trail dete- Evergreen State College. 142 p. Thesis. rioration study. Pullman: Washington State University. 103 p. Johnson, Darryl R. 1978. A statistical summary of selected data Thesis. from the backcountry users survey. Unpublished report on file at: Helgath, Sheila F. 1975. Trail deterioration in the Selway-Bitter- Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, University of Washington, root Wilderness. Res. Note INT-193. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- Seattle. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Johnson, Darryl R. 1985. Tatsenshini Alsek River recreation study Range Experiment Station. 15 p. 1984: statistical abstract. Unpublished report on file at: Coopera- Hendee, John C.; Catton, William R., Jr.; Marlow, Larry D.; tive Ecosystem Studies Unit, University of Washington, Seattle. Brockman, C. Frank. 1968. Wilderness users in the Pacific Johnson, Laura C.; Wallace, George N.; Mitchell, John E. 1997. Northwest—their characteristics, values, and management pref- Visitor perceptions of livestock grazing in five U.S. wilderness erences. Res. Pap. PNW-61. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of areas––a preliminary assessment. International Journal of Wil- Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range derness. 3(2): 14–20. Experiment Station. 92 p. Johnson, Marianne Evelyn. 1989. Recreational impact on the In- Hendee, John C.; Clark, Roger N.; Dailey, Thomas E. 1977. Fishing dian Peaks Wilderness Area, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colo- and other recreation behavior at high-mountain lakes in Wash- rado State University. 147 p. Thesis. ington State. Res. Note PNW-304. Portland, OR: U.S. Depart- Jubenville, Alan. 1970. Travel patterns of wilderness users in the ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Anaconda-Pintlar Wilderness. Missoula, MT: University of Mon- Range Experiment Station. 27 p. tana. 240 p. Dissertation. Hill, L. Bruce; Harper, Wendy; Halstead, John M.; Stevens, Thomas Jubenville, Alan. 1971. A test of differences between wilderness H.; Porras, Ina; Kimball, Kenneth D. 2000. Visitor perceptions recreation party leaders and party members. Journal of Leisure and valuation of visibility in the Great Gulf Wilderness, New Research. 3(2): 116–119. Hampshire. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, Kantola, W. W. 1976. Opinions and preferences of visitors toward William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a alternatives for limiting use in the backcountry of Sequoia and time of change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, Kings Canyon National Parks. Eugene: University of Oregon. 83 p. threats, and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. Thesis. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kelley, Mark D. 1979. Individual and social motive factors influenc- Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 304–311. ing recreation participation in the Rattlesnake backcountry, Hockett, Karen; Hall, Troy. 1999. Shenandoah National Park 1976. Missoula: University of Montana. 176 p. Thesis. backcountry and wilderness visitor survey. Unpublished report Kennedy, James J.; Brown, Perry J. 1976. Attitudes and behavior of on file at: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, fishermen in Utah’s Uinta Primitive Area. Fisheries. 1 (6): 15–17, Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. 165 p. 30–31. Hockett, Karen S.; Hall, Troy E. 2000. Visitors’ knowledge of Kiely-Brocato, Kathleen. 1980. An assessment of visitor attitudes Federal wilderness: implications for wilderness user research towards resource use and management. Journal of Environmen- and management. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, tal Education. 11(4): 29–36. William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a Kohls, Steven J. 1986. Human behavior and attitudes toward time of change conference—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, expe- wilderness and its associated wildlife: a case study of the Bound- riences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, ary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Unpublished report on file MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of at: Yale University, New Haven, CT. 169 p. Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Krumpe, Edwin E. 1979. Redistributing backcountry use by a 122–127. behaviorally based communications device. Fort Collins: Colo- Hockett, Karen S.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Yoder, Andrew D. 2002. rado State University. 156 p. Dissertation. Okefenokee wilderness visitors’ characteristics, perceptions, and Kuzmic, Thomas. 1993. Characteristics of visitors and recreational management preferences. Unpublished report on file at: use of the Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness in Oklahoma. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Folkston, GA. 193 p. Stillwater: Oklahoma State University. 334 p. Dissertation. Holmes, David O. 1973. Yosemite backcountry inventory: summer Lah, Kristopher J. 2000. Developing social standards for wilderness 1972. Unpublished paper on file at: Yosemite National Park, encounters in Mount Rainer National Park: manager-defined Research Center, El Portal, CA. versus visitor-defined standards. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Hoover, Sharon L.; King, David A.; Matter, William J. 1985. A Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. wilderness riparian environment: visitor satisfaction, percep- Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: tions, reality, and management. In: Johnson, R. Roy, comp. wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 Interagency North American riparian conference: riparian eco- May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: systems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 1985 April 16–18; Tucson, AZ. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department Research Station: 134–141. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Lee, Robert G. 1975. The management of human components in the Experiment Station: 223–226. Yosemite National Park ecosystem. Unpublished report on file at: Hoss, Amy F.; Brunson, Mark W. 2000. Meanings and implications U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San of acceptability judgments for wilderness use impacts. In: Cole, Francisco, CA. David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Lee, Robert G. 1977. Alone with others: the paradox of privacy in Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change confer- wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 1(1): 3–19.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 47 Leung, Yu–Fai; Marion, Jeffrey L. 2000. Wilderness campsite Martin, Steven R. 2000. Donations as an alternative to wilderness conditions under an unregulated camping policy: an Eastern user fees—the case of the Desolation Wilderness. In: Cole, David N.; example. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 148–152. Rocky Mountain Research Station: 142–147. Lewis, Jeffery William. 1971. Perception of desert wilderness by McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N. 2000. Communicating mini- the Superstition Wilderness user. Tucson: University of Arizona. mum impact behavior with trailside bulletin boards: visitor 124 p. Thesis. characteristics associated with effectiveness. In: Cole, David N.; Lime, David W. 1972. Large groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, Area––their numbers, characteristics, and impacts. Res. Note comps. Wilderness science in a time of change conference— NC–142. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor manage- Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Lime, David W.; Fox, Karen M.; Jeong, Gang Hoan; Lewis, Michael Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, S. 1990. Wildland recreation research in the Western Lake Rocky Mountain Research Station: 208–216. Superior basin: an annotated bibliography, 1990. Misc. Publ. 66- McCool, Stephen F.; Martin, Steven R.; Yuan, Michael. 1990. The 1990. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural 1989 Bear Trap Canyon visitor study. Res. Rep. 13. Missoula: Experiment Station. 62 p. University of Montana, School of Forestry, Institute for Tourism Littlejohn, Margaret. 1994. Visitor services project: Death Valley and Recreation Research. National Monument backcountry. Visitor Services Project Rep. 64. McCool, Stephen F.; Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Cushwa, Charles T. 1969. Moscow: University of Idaho, Cooperative Park Studies Unit. The condition of wilderness campsites in the Boundary Waters 43 p. Canoe Area. Minnesota Forestry Res. Note 202. St. Paul: Univer- Littlejohn, Margaret. 1999. Cumberland Island National Seashore sity of Minnesota, School of Forestry. 4 p. visitor study —spring 1998. Moscow: University of Idaho, Coop- McCool, Stephen F.; Stankey, George H. 1986. Visitor attitudes erative Park Studies Unit. toward wilderness fire management policy, 1971–84. Res. Pap. Love, Timothy G.; Watson, Alan E. 1992. Effects of the Gates Park INT-357. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Fire on recreation choices. Res. Pap. INT-402. Ogden, UT: U.S. Service, Intermountain Research Station. 7 p. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Re- McEwen, Douglas; Cole, David N.; Simon, Mark. 1996. Campsite search Station. 7 p. impacts in four wildernesses in the South–Central United States. Lucas, Robert C. 1962. The Quetico-Superior area: recreational use INT–RP–490. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- in relation to capacity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. est Service, Intermountain Research Station. 12 p. Dissertation. Merriam, L. C., Jr. 1963. A land use study of the Bob Marshall Lucas, Robert C. 1964a. Wilderness perception and use: the ex- Wilderness area of Montana. Bull. 26. Missoula: University of ample of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Natural Resources Montana, School of Forestry, Forest and Conservation Experi- Journal. 3(3): 394–411. ment Station. 190 p. Lucas, Robert C. 1964b. The recreational capacity of the Quetico- Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Ammons, R. B. 1968. The wilderness user in Superior area. Res. Pap. LS-15. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department three Montana areas. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, School of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment of Forestry; Missoula: University of Montana, School Forestry. Station. 34 p. 54 p. Lucas, Robert C. 1970. User concepts of wilderness and their Merriam, Lawrence C.; Peterson, R. F. 1983. Impact of 15 years of implications for resource management. In: Proshansky, Harold use on some campsites in the BWCA. Minnesota Forestry Res. M.; Helson, William H.; Rivlin, Leanne G., eds. Environmental Note 282. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, College of Forestry. psychology: man and his physical setting. New York: Holt, 4 p. Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.: 297–300. Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Smith, C. K. 1974. Visitor impact on newly Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor characteristics, developed campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Jour- attitudes, and preferences in nine wilderness and other roadless nal of Forestry. 72(10): 627–630. areas. Res. Pap. INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agri- Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Smith, C. K. 1975. Newly established campsites culture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experi- in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area restudy of selected sites— ment Station. 89 p. 1974. Minnesota Forestry Res. Notes 254. St. Paul: University of Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use Minnesota, School of Forestry. 4 p. patterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex, 1970-82. Res. Merriam, L. C., Jr.; Smith, C. K.; Miller, D. E.; Huang, Ching tiao; Pap. INT-345. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For- Tappeiner, J .C., II; Goeckermann, Kent; Bloemendal, J. A.; est Service, Intermountain Research Station. 32 p. Costello, T. M. 1973. Newly developed campsites in the Boundary Manfredo, Michael J. 1979. Wilderness experience opportunities Waters Canoe Area: a study of 5 years’ use. Station Bull. 511. St. and management references for three Wyoming wilderness ar- Paul: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. eas. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. 112 p. Dissertation. 27 p. Marion, Jeffrey L. 1984. Ecological changes resulting from recre- Michael, Jeffery A.; Reiling, Stephen; Cheng, Hsiang-Tai. 1994. ational use: a study of backcountry campsites in the Boundary Factors affecting the value of a wilderness visit: a contingent Waters Canoe Area. St. Paul: University of Minnesota. 279 p. valuation study of Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness us- Dissertation. ers. In: Vander Stoep, Gail A., comp. Proceedings of the 1994 Marion, Jeffrey L.; Haskell, David. 1988. An analysis of visitor Northeastern recreation research symposium; 1994 April 10–12; impacts and rehabilitation methods for backcountry campsites at Sarasota Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-198. Newtown Square, Shenandoah National Park. Rep. 4840-RMVP-N-61. U.S. Vir- PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast- ginia: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, ern Forest Experiment Station: 135–137. Shenandoah National Park. 38 p. Moore, Steven D.; Brickler, Stanley K.; Shockey, James W.; King, Marion, Jeffrey L.; Merriam, Lawrence C. 1985a. Predictability of David A. 1989. Sociological aspects of recreation at Aravaipa recreational impact on soils. Soil Science Society of America Canyon Wilderness, Arizona. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Journal. 49: 751–753. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Safford Marion, Jeffrey L.; Merriam, Lawrence C. 1985b. Recreational District Office, Safford, AZ. 145 p. impacts on well-established campsites in the Boundary Waters Moorhead, Bruce B.; Schreiner, Edward S. 1979. Management Canoe Area Wilderness. Station Bull. AD-SB-2502. St. Paul, MN: studies of human impact at backcountry campsites in Olympic University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 p. National Park, Washington. In: Linn, Robert M., ed. Proceedings of the first conference on scientific research in the national
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 parks—Vol. 2; 1976 November 9–12; New Orleans, LA. Washing- Ramthun, Roy; Kersey, Lynda; Rogers, Jim. 2000. Information ton, DC: National Park Service transactions and proceedings collection styles of wilderness users: a market segmentation series, number 5: 1273–1278. approach. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William Moritsch, B. J.; Muir, P. 1993. Subalpine revegetation on backcountry T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of campsites near Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park, change conference—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, California: changes in vegetation after three years. Natural and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Pro. Areas Journal. 13: 155–163. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nellis, Julie G. 1996. Visitors, perceptions and the wilderness Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 217–220. experience. Northridge: California State University, Northridge. Ranz, Beth. 1979. Closing wilderness campsites: visitor use prob- Thesis. lems and ecological recovery in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilder- Olsen, Scott. 1998. Visitor response to a fee demonstration pilot ness, Montana. Missoula: University of Montana. 125 p. Thesis. project in the Paria Canyon—Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness Area. Robertson, Rachel D. 1981. An investigation of visitor behavior in Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University. 53 p. Thesis. wilderness areas. Iowa City: University of Iowa. 174 p. Dissertation. Olsen, Scott. 1999. Results of Paria Canyon/Coyote Buttes recre- Robertson, Rachel D. 1986. Actual versus self-reported wilderness ation test fee demonstration pilot project visitor survey. Unpub- visitor behavior. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceedings—na- lished report on file at: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau tional wilderness research conference: current research; 1985 of Land Management, Arizona Strip Field Office and Kanab Field July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, Office. 44 p. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermoun- Orr, Taylor. 1983. The feasibility of implementing a campfire tain Research Station: 326–332. closure in a heavily used portion of Eagle Cap Wilderness. Rochefort, Regina M.; Swinney, Darin D. 2000. Human impact Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, surveys in Mount Rainier National Park: past, present, and Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Eagle Cap future. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; Ranger District, Enterprise, OR. 52 p. O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of Overton, Deborah J. 1991. Campsite change due to minimum and change conference—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, traditional impact behavior practices. Fort Collins: Colorado and management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS– State University. 156 p. Dissertation. P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Papenfuse, Meghan A.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Hall, Troy E. 2000. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 165–171. The rise of the day visitor in wilderness: should managers be Rogers, Paul. 1986. Campsite impacts in the High Uintas Wilder- concerned? In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William ness Area: a study of two altitudinal zones. Madison: University T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of of Wisconsin. 110 p. Thesis. change conference—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1980. Wilderness user preferences: Eastern and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. and Western areas. In: Proceedings of the wilderness manage- RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ment symposium.; 1980 November 13–15; Knoxville, TN: Univer- Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 149–154. sity of Tennessee. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Parker, Julia Dawn; Avant, Bill. 1999. Caney Creek Wilderness vice. 103–146. recreation: a preliminary report. Unpublished report on file at: Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Berrier, Deborah L. 1980. The effective- University of Arkansas, School of Forest Resources, Monticello, ness of information on dispersing wilderness campers. Unpub- AR. lished report on file at: Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Insti- Parker, Julia Dawn; Winter, Patricia L. 1998. A case study of tute and State University, Department of Forestry. communication with Anglo and Hispanic wilderness visitors. Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Dawson, Michael S. 1979. Recreation Research brief. Journal of Interpretation Research. 3(1): 55–56. experience preferences of wilderness and backcountry hikers: Parsons, David J.; Stohlgren, Thomas J. 1987. Impacts of visitor use Linville Gorge Wilderness, Shining Rock Wilderness, Joyce on backcountry campsites in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness and Shenandoah National Park. Parks, California. Tech. Rep. 25. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of Unpublished report on file at: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the Interior, National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies State University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Unit, University of California at Davis. 79 p. Blacksburg, VA. 163 p. Patterson, Michael E.; Williams, Daniel R. 1991. A transactional Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Stubbs, Christopher J. 1991. Changes in approach to characterizing relationship to resource. In: Williams, wilderness visits, visitors, problems, and preferences at Shining D. R.; Patterson, M. E.; comp. Conceptual and empirical analysis Rock Wilderness: 1978 and 1990. Unpublished report on file at: of visitors’ relationship to resource. Blacksburg: Virginia Poly- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain technic Institute and State University, College of Forest and Research Station, Missoula, MT. 162 p. Wildlife Resources, Department of Forestry: 1–32. Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Timm, Wendy N.; Watson, Alan E. 1979. Peterson, George L. 1971. Motivations, perceptions, satisfactions Visitor perception of the recreation carrying capacity of three and environmental dispositions of Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness areas in North Carolina: Linville Gorge Wilderness, users and managers: a pilot study. Final report, cooperative Shining Rock Wilderness, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness. research project 13-253 between Northwestern University and Unpublished report on file at: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the North Central Forest Experiment Station. Evanston, IL: State University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Northwestern University Technological Institute, Department of Blacksburg, VA. 303 p. Civil Engineering; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Watson, Alan E.; Stankey, George H. 1982. vice, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 264 p. Wilderness management in the Southern Appalachians. South- Pierskalla, Chad; Anderson, Dorothy H.; Lime, David W. 1997. Isle ern Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 147–152. Royale National Park 1996 Visitor Survey. Unpublished report Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Widner, Carolyn J.; Williams, Daniel R. on file at: St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of 1994. Mount Rogers NRA High Country use and user management Forest Resources. 1992–93. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agri- Pierskalla, Chad D.; Anderson, Dorothy H.; Lime, David W. 2000. culture, Forest Service, Jefferson National Forest, Roanoke, VA. Examining leisure event opportunities of Isle Royale National Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Williams, Daniel R.; Watson, Alan E. 1993. Park: bridging the gap between social processes and spatial form. Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; Management. 17(2): 187–197. O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of Rutlin, William R.; Hammitt, William E. 1994. Ellicott Rock Wilder- change conference—Volume 4: wilderness visitors, experiences, ness visitor study: a survey of users and use patterns. Unpublished and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. report on file at: Clemson University, Department of Parks, Recre- RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ation and Tourism Management, Clemson, SC. 92 p. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 155–159. Salvi, W. C.; Johnson, Darryl R. 1985. Glacier Bay backcountry Puttkammer, Annette. 1994. A managerial and theoretical ap- users study 1984: statistical abstract. Unpublished report on file proach to the management of the Mount Shasta Wilderness. Fort at: Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, University of Washing- Collins. Colorado State University. 69 p. Thesis. ton, Seattle.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 49 Saunders, Paul R. 1985. Shining Rock Wilderness: impacts of dis- Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Harris, Rick. 1988. User standards for persed use. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Conner, Richard N., eds. ecological impacts at wilderness campsites. Journal of Leisure Wilderness and natural areas in the Eastern United States: a Research. 20(3): 245–256. management challenge. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin Uni- Simon, Larry. 1978. Soil physical properties of selected campsites versity, School of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies: 260–264. under varying use levels in the Kearsarge-Bullfrog-Charlotte Saunders, Paul Richard. 1986. Shining Rock Wilderness: impacts of Lakes area of Kings Canyon National Park.. Unpublished report dispersed use. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Conner, Richard N., eds. on file at: Kings Canyon National Park, Three Rivers, CA. 53 p. Wilderness & natural areas in Eastern North America: a man- Snyder, Donald L.; Fawson, Christopher; Godfrey, E. Bruce; Keith, agement challenge. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State John E.; Lilieholm, Robert J. 1995. Wilderness designation in University, School of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies in Utah: issues and potential economic impacts. Utah Agricultural Forestry: 260–264. Experiment Station Res. Rep. 151. Logan, UT: Utah State Uni- Schneider, Ingrid E. 2000. Responses to conflict in urban-proxi- versity. 257 p. mate areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Sommarstrom, Allan Ralph. 1966. The impact of human use on 18(2): 37–53. recreational quality: the example of the Olympic National Park Schneider, Ingrid E.; Hammitt, William E. 1995. Visitor responses backcountry user. Seattle: University of Washington. 79 p. Thesis. to on-site recreation conflict. Journal of Applied Recreation Re- Spildie, David R.; Cole, David N.; Walker, Sarah C. 2000. Effective- search. 20(4): 249–268. ness of a confinement strategy in reducing pack stock impacts at Schneider, Ingrid; LaPointe, Christopher; Stievater, Sharon. 2000. campsites in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. In: Cole, Perceptions of and preferences for fee program utilization among David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, wilderness visitors. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Jennifer, comps. Wilderness science in a time of change confer- Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. Wilderness ence—Volume 5: wilderness ecosystems, threats, and manage- science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: wilderness ment; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. De- Rocky Mountain Research Station: 199–208. partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re- Stankey, George H. 1973. Visitor perception of wilderness recre- search Station: 164–166. ation carrying capacity. Res. Pap. INT-142. Ogden, UT: U.S. Schreiner, Edward G. S.; Moorhead, Bruce B. 1976. Human impact Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain For- studies in Olympic National Park. In: Proceedings on the sympo- est and Range Experiment Station. 61 p. sium of terrestrial and aquatic ecological studies of the Northwes; Stankey, George H. 1979. Use rationing in two southern California 1076 March 26–27; Cheney, WA. Cheney: Eastern Washington wildernesses. Journal of Forestry. 77(5): 347–349. State College: 59–66. Stankey, George H. 1980. A comparison of carrying capacity percep- Schreiner, Edward G. S.; Moorhead, Bruce B. 1979. Human impact tions among visitors to two wildernesses. Res. Pap. INT-242. inventory and management in the Olympic National Park Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, backcountry. In: Ittner, Ruth; Potter, Dale R.; Agee, James K.; Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 34 p. Anschell, Susan, eds. Recreational impact on wildlands: confer- Stewart, William P. 1991. Compliance with fixed-itinerary systems in ence proceedings; Seattle, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, water-based parks. Environmental Management. 15 (2): 235–240. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Stohlgren, Thomas J. 1982. Vegetation and soil recovery of subal- Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: pine campsites in Sequoia National Park, California. Fresno: 203–212. California State University, Fresno. 49 p. Thesis. Schuster, Rudy M. 2000. Coping with stressful situations and Stohlgren, Thomas J. 1986. Variation of vegetation and soil charac- hassles during outdoor recreation experiences in wilderness teristics within wilderness campsites. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. environments. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. Dissertation Proceedings—National wilderness research conference: current Scuderi, Michael Robert. 1981. An examination of the spatial research; Fort Collins, CO. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of behavior of wilderness users, with special reference to campsite Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: selection–—a case study in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 152–157. Parks, California. Seattle: University of Washington. 174 p. Stohlgren, Thomas J.; Parsons, David J. 1986. Vegetation and soil Thesis. recovery in wilderness campsites closed to visitor use. Environ- Setran, Marie T. 1978. A study of social carrying capacities for San mental Management. 10(3): 375–380. Jacinto Wilderness. Long Beach: California State University, Stohlgren, Thomas J.; Parsons, David J. 1992. Evaluating wilder- Long Beach. 104 p. Thesis. ness recreational opportunities: application of an impact matrix. Shafer, Carl Scott. 1993. The relationships among wilderness expe- Environmental Management. 16(3): 397–403. rience dimensions, conditions of concern and coping behaviors: Stoner, Mary Alice Taylor. 1976. Identification of the Selway-Bitter- applying descriptors of designated wilderness. Clemson, SC: root wilderness airplane access users in comparison with conven- Clemson University. 240 p. Dissertation. tional access users. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Shafer, C. Scott; Hammitt, William E. 1995. Congruency among Department of Park and Recreation Resources. 103 p. Thesis. experience dimensions, condition indicators, and coping behav- Stubbs, Christopher J. 1991. Low-impact recreational practices: iors in wilderness. Leisure Sciences. 17(4): 263–279. assessing and improving wilderness user knowledge, behavioral Sheehan, M. 1989. The Cactus Forest trails—a trail user question- intentions, and behavior. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Insti- naire analysis. Unpublished report on file at: University of tute and State University. 119 p. Thesis. Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Tucson, AZ. Stubbs, Christopher J.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W. 1994. Assessing 44 p. and improving wilderness recreationists’ low-impact knowledge, Shelby, Bo; Goodwin, Jay; Brunson, Mark; Anderson, David. 1989. behavioral intentions, and behavior. In: Sydoriak, Charisse, Impacts of recreation use limits in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. comp. Wilderness: the spirit lives. 6th national wilderness confer- Unpublished report on file at: Department of Forest Resources, ence; 1994 November 14–18; Santa Fe, NM: 109–112. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 105 p. Swanson, Jane; Vande Kamp, Mark; Johnson, Darryl R. 2002a. A Shelby, Bo; Harris, Richard. 1985. Comparing methods for deter- survey of overnight backcountry visitors to Denali National Park mining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: site visits, pho- and Preserve. Unpublished report on file at: Cooperative Ecosys- tographs, and written descriptions. Journal of Leisure Research. tem Studies Unit, University of Washington, Seattle. 17(1): 57–67. Swanson, Jane; Vande Kamp, Mark; Johnson, Darryl R. 2002b. A Shelby, Bo; Harris, Rick. 1986. User standards for ecological im- survey of overnight backcountry visitors to Mount Rainier Na- pacts at wilderness campsites. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Pro- tional Park. Unpublished report on file at: Cooperative Ecosys- ceedings––national wilderness research conference: current re- tem Studies Unit, University of Washington, Seattle. search; 1985 July 23–26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. Sydoriak, Charisse A. 1986. Yosemite wilderness trail and campsite INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest impact monitoring system. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Service, Intermountain Research Station: 166–171. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, CA. 25 p.
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Tarrant, Michael A.; Schafer, C. Scott. 1998. A comparison of PSW-GTR-132. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, preferred experiences and setting conditions in one Eastern and Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 71–72. one Western wilderness area. In: Kulhavy, David L.; Legg, Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1992b. Defining past expe- Michael H., eds. Wilderness & natural areas in Eastern North rience dimensions for wilderness recreation. Leisure Sciences. America: research, management, and planning. Nacogdoches, 14: 89–103. TX: Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur Temple College Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J.; Williams, Daniel R. 1993. of Forestry, Center for Applied Studies in Forestry: 200–204. Hikers and recreational stock users: predicting and managing Taves, Marvin; Hathaway, William; Bultena, Gordon. 1960. Canoe recreation conflicts in three wildernesses. Res. Pap. INT–468. country vacationers. Misc. Rep. 39. St. Paul: University of Minne- Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, sota, Agricultural Experiment Station. 28 p. Intermountain Research Station. 35 p. Thorn, Todd F. 1994. Teaching low-impact camping practices to Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J.; Williams, Daniel R. 1994. wilderness backpackers: an evaluation of trailhead information The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock signing and personal contact. Logan: Utah State University. 121 p. users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research. Thesis. 26(4): 372–385. Thornburgh, Dale A. 1962. An ecological study of the effect of man’s Watson, A.; Puttkamer, A.; Christensen, N. 1998c. Desolation recreational use at two subalpine sites in western Washington. Wilderness visitor response to fees. Unpublished report on file at: Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. 50 p. Thesis. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT. Trench, Kesia; Wallace, George N. 1994. Norms held by rock Watson, Alan E.; Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; climbers for different settings in Joshua Tree National Monu- Daigle, John J. 1992. Visitor characteristics and preferences for ment. In: Sydoriak, Charisse, comp. Wilderness: the spirit lives. three national forest wildernesses in the South. Res. Pap. INT- 6th national wilderness conference; 1994 November 14–18; 455. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Santa Fe, NM: 78–90. Intermountain Research Station. 27 p. Vande Kamp, Mark E.; Johnson, Darryll R.; Swanson, Jane E. 1998. Weesner, Margaret W. 1990. Relationships between campsite char- Mount Rainier National Park—1993 Spray Park visitor survey. acteristics and level of recreation impact. Moscow: University of USGS/BRD/FRESC. Tech. Rep. NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-98-04 NPS Idaho. 153 p. Thesis. D-317. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest Wellman, J. D.; Dawson, M. S.; Roggenbuck, J. W. 1982. Park Resources. 294 p. manager’s prediction of the motivation of visitors to two National Vande Kamp, Mark; Swanson, Jane; Johnson, Darryl R. 2000. A Park Service areas. Journal of Leisure Research. 14: 1–15. survey of wilderness trail users in Mount Rainier National Park. Wenger, Wiley D. 1964. A test of unmanned registration stations Tech. Rep. NPS/CCSOUW/NRTR-2000-01. Seattle: University of on wilderness trails: factors influencing effectiveness. Res. Pap. Washington, College of Forest Resources. PNW-16.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Vande Kamp, Mark; Swanson, Jane; Johnson, Darryl, R. 2002. A Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. survey of visitors hiking the Harding Icefield Trail in Kenai Wenger, Wiley D.; Gregersen, H. M. 1964. The effect of nonresponse Fjords National Park. Unpublished report on file at: University on representativeness of wilderness-trail register information. of Washington, College of Forest Resource, Seattle, WA. Res. Pap. PNW-17. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul- Warren, Gregory A. 1980. Activities, attitudes and management ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi- preferences of visitors of the Arctic National Wildlife Range, ment Station. Alaska. Moscow: University of Idaho. 51 p. Thesis. Widner, Carolyn June. 1994. Conflict among hikers and horse- Warren, Gregory A. 1986. Activities, attitudes and management back riders in the Mount Rogers High Country of Virginia. preferences of visitors of the Arctic National Wildlife Range, Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer- Alaska. In: Lucas, Robert C., comp. Proceedings—national wil- sity. 104 p. Thesis. derness research conference: current research; 1985 July 23–26; Wildland Research Center, University of California. 1962. Wilder- Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. ness and recreation––a report on resources, values and problems. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Re- Review Commission Study Rep. 3. Washington, DC: Outdoor search Station: 278–286. Recreation Resources. 352 p. Watson, Alan E. 1993. Characteristics of visitors without permits Williams, Daniel R.; Patterson, Michael E.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; compared to those with permits at the Desolation Wilderness, Watson, Alan E. 1992a. Beyond the commodity metaphor: exam- California. Res. Note IN-414. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of ining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sci- Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. ences. 14: 29–46. 7 p. Williams, Daniel R.; Roggenbuck, Joseph W.; Patterson, Michael E.; Watson, Alan E. 1995. Opportunities for solitude in the Boundary Watson, Alan E. 1992b. The variability of user-based social Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Northern Journal of Applied impact standards for wilderness management. Forest Science. Forestry. 12(1): 12–18. 38(4): 738–756. Watson, Alan E.; Cronn, Rich; Christensen, Neal A. 1998a. Monitor- Williams, Peter B. 1994. Backcountry campsite conditions assessed ing inter-group encounters in wilderness. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP- for Limits of Acceptable Change planning in Shenandoah Na- 14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest tional Park. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 20 p. University. 185 p. Thesis. Watson, Alan E.; Hendee, John C.; Zaglauer, Hans P. 1996. Human Williams, Peter B.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1995. Backcountry campsite values and codes of behavior: changes in Oregon’s Eagle Cap conditions assessed for Limits of Acceptable Change planning in Wilderness visitors and their attitudes. Natural Areas Journal. Shenandoah National Park. Tech. Rep. NPS/MARSHEN/NRTR- 16(2): 89–93. 95/071. Blacksburg, VA: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, U.S. Watson, Alan E.; Hunger, Don; Christensen, Neal; Spildie, Dave; Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Virginia Becker, Kurt; Comstock, Jeff. 1998b. Wilderness boaters: protect- Tech, Department of Forestry. 137 p. ing unique opportunities in the Frank Church-River of No Return Williams, Peter B.; Marion, Jeffrey L. 1997. Assessment of Wilderness, Idaho, U.S.A. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; backcountry campsite conditions in Big Bend National Park. Hendee, John C., comps. 1998. Personal, societal, and ecological Res./Resour. Manage. Rep. Texas: U.S. Department of the Inte- values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceed- rior, National Park Service, Southwest Region, Big Bend Na- ings on research, management, and allocation, volume 1; 1997 tional Park. 112 p. October; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Winter, Patricia L. 1996. San Gorgonio Wilderness visitor survey: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain summer and fall, 1994. Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Depart- Research Station: 151–158. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1992a. Place of residence Station, Riverside, CA. 34 p. and hiker-horse conflict in the Sierras. In: Chavez, Deborah J., ed. Winter, Patricia L.; Marcus-Newhall, Amy; Cannon, Joanna. 1997. Proceedings of the symposium on social aspects and recreation 1997 San Gorgonio study report. Unpublished paper on file at: research; 1992 February 19–22; Ontario, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. Riverside, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 21 p.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 51 Winter, Patricia L.; Meyer, Andrea; Marcus-Newhall, Amy. 1999. Wright, William F. 1966. A study of land management and recre- South Fork and Momyer trailheads San Gorgonio Wilderness ational users of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Montana recreational activities project report. Unpublished paper on file 1964. Missoula: University of Montana. 121 p. Thesis. at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific South- Young, James Mark. 1990. Identification of social indicators and west Research Station, Riverside, CA. 27 p. standards for acceptable conditions in the Cohutta Wilderness Womble, Peter. 1981. The response of hikers to being in the presence using a normative social judgment approach. Blacksburg: Vir- of others: the study of crowding and social gathering in Alaska’s ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 212 p. Thesis. National Parks. University of Washington. 302 p. Dissertation. Young, Robert Allen. 1978. An analysis of wilderness concepts and Womble, Peter; Johnson, Darryll; Bultena, Gordon; Field, Donald. values. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1980. The response of hikers to seeing resource impacts in the 199 p. Dissertation. backcountry. Unpublished paper on file at: University of Wash- Zuckert, Judith A. 1980. Environmental and psychological determi- ington, College of Forest Resources, Cooperative Park Studies nants of campsite selection at a high Sierra lake. Fort Collins: Unit, Seattle, WA. Colorado State University. 72 p. Thesis.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. 2003 Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper
RMRS ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION
The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific informa- tion and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land recla- mation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found worldwide.
Research Locations
Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming
*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.